ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

Race Course Pitch Tenures

Philip Davies: What progress he has made in resolving the dispute between race course owners and race course bookmakers on pitch tenures.

John Penrose: I am sure that the House will remember that in 2009 the previous Government brokered an agreement in principle between race course bookmakers and race courses. It is fair to say that progress since has been stately rather than swift, but I am pleased to report that so far 17 race courses, including Towcester and those owned by Northern Racing and Arena Leisure, have agreed terms of one kind or another.

Philip Davies: The Minister is right that some progress has been made, but there is very slow progress, if any at all, with some other race courses. He will be aware that the Select Committee report issued in the previous Parliament found very firmly in favour of race course bookmakers. I hope he will take steps to encourage race courses to give a fair settlement to race course bookmakers who felt that they were buying their pitches in perpetuity.

John Penrose: I am sure that most Members, and people in the racing family more widely, would agree with my hon. Friend. I think that everyone is collectively anxious that this matter should be resolved quickly. I am sure that as a good free marketeer, my hon. Friend will agree that it is better for both sides to agree this between themselves rather than have political interference to push it along. The official form of words is that all options remain open to me. I would say to those involved that they do not want politicians of any stripe turning up to try to do this for them, because the chances are that the result will be less good than one they have brokered for themselves.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate the Minister on using his powers, because he might have to. Seventeen out of 59 courses have signed up already,
	but that is not enough. There is a time constraint, and some courses hope that the time will lapse and that they will not have to do anything. I hope that he will keep his eye on the situation and make sure that he reminds them that a deal was about to be done.

John Penrose: That is absolutely right. A deal was agreed in principle and, as I said, all sides in racing expect a solution to be reached. I am keeping a close eye on it, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister will be aware that I had a question on the Order Paper about the grand national, which was transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will he explain why betting on horse races is the responsibility of his Department, but what happens in the race, including horses being ridden to their deaths, is not? Before he says that the welfare of horses is an animal welfare matter, will he explain what would happen if I had asked about the welfare of jockeys?

John Penrose: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister will not forget the relevance of pitch tenures when answering.

John Penrose: Thank you for that reminder, Mr Speaker.
	As the hon. Lady is pursuing the point specifically about animal welfare with DEFRA, I will not go into that. More broadly, matters to do with racing governance generally, which will include health and safety for jockeys, are part of this Department’s responsibilities. The historically close link between racing and gambling is the reason the two areas are linked in the same portfolio.

Sport Participation

Dan Jarvis: What assessment he has made of the effect on participation in sport at youth level of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

Hugh Robertson: The comprehensive spending review period started only on 1 April, so no formal assessment has yet been made. However, the increase in lottery funding for sport and the inspirational effect of hosting events such as the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics should encourage more young people to participate in sport.

Dan Jarvis: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Without the Newham-Barnsley partnership, London 2012 would be having little impact in my constituency. Will the Minister look at ways of using the example of the Newham-Barnsley partnership as a means of increasing youth participation in sport?

Hugh Robertson: Yes.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister agree that holding the Olympics in London inspires youth participation in sport across the whole country?

Hugh Robertson: Again, the answer is simply yes. Of course, there is not only the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics: in its wake a serious number of major events are coming to this country, including the rugby league world cup, rugby union world cup, cricket world cup and a number of competitions such as the world canoeing championships, which we have just secured. A host of sports events are coming to this country after 2012 that will have exactly that effect.

Tessa Jowell: Will the Minister agree to study carefully the results of the survey that my right hon. Friend the shadow Education Secretary and I have undertaken on the expectations of sports partnership development managers regarding the impact of funding cuts on school sport? Does he share my concern that partnership development managers expect a decrease in the number of competitive events and sports in which children can participate? A significant number of them, some 90%, consider that that there will be a reduction in the number of children taking part in sport. Does he share my concern that if those predictions materialise, it will put at risk the legacy promise of transforming a generation of children through sport?

Hugh Robertson: Yes. As with anything the right hon. Lady says or gives to me, I will consider it extremely carefully. We have to be absolutely clear about the matters to which she refers. They are matters for the Department for Education, not this Department, although clearly we keep a close eye on them. Everybody recognises that we are delivering this against a troubled economic backdrop and that there has to be less money available than there would have been. That would have happened whichever party was in power. Set against that, we have to make the most of the opportunities available to us. I am convinced that by safeguarding the whole sport plan funding and by introducing the schools Olympics, we are doing everything we can against a challenging backdrop to make the most of this fantastic opportunity. However, I will look at what she says carefully.

Live Theatre

Alan Beith: What recent discussions he has had with the chair of Arts Council England on the provision of live theatre in rural locations.

Edward Vaizey: I regularly meet the chair and chief executive of Arts Council England to discuss a wide range of issues. A number of organisations based in or serving rural communities will receive Arts Council funding. Rural areas will also benefit from the £18 million of lottery income earmarked for touring from April 2012.

Alan Beith: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the organisations that take theatre to village halls in rural communities are disproportionately hit in the Arts Council review? Many are losing 100% of their funding, including the excellent Northumberland Theatre Company, which is based at Alnwick Playhouse. Is the
	Arts Council not failing to meet its objective of bringing theatre to new audiences by making that decision in this difficult situation?

Edward Vaizey: I know that the Arts Council carefully considered funding for Northumberland Theatre Company, and it will still have funding next year. It is worth noting that the Maltings centre in Berwick-upon-Tweed received a 300% increase in funding—the fourth largest funding increase; that the Berwick film and media arts festival will become a national portfolio organisation; and that Queen’s Hall Arts and Highlights, which tours in the area, will continue to receive funding.

Ivan Lewis: May I begin by paying tribute to officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who have done so much to support the arrangements for tomorrow’s royal wedding, and to the thousands of public service workers, police officers, community support officers and emergency service people who will keep the streets safe so that the occasion can be joyous? Members from all parts of the House wish the royal couple a happy day. Of course, they were not responsible for aspects of the guest list in terms of the DCMS.
	Like many arts activities, live theatre in rural communities faces a bleak future. Does the Minister regret the following statement made by the Secretary of State just before the election:
	“People have had certain assumptions in the past about Conservative governments…that appeared to say public spending on the arts was something you might want to progressively reduce. That isn’t where the modern Conservative party stands.”?
	Is the Secretary of State still in denial when hundreds of arts organisations have suffered cuts, some are going to the wall, others are increasing ticket prices at a time when people’s incomes are being squeezed, and many are scaling back their educational and outreach programmes to the most disadvantaged communities? Is not the modern Conservative party the same old Tories?

Edward Vaizey: Perhaps I, too, may use this opportunity to thank officials in my Department for the hard work they have done on the royal wedding, and to wish Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton great joy on their day? I know that the Secretary of State is looking forward to attending the wedding tomorrow. It remains to be seen whether he will tweet throughout it.
	I hear what the shadow Secretary of State says, but I do not regret what the Secretary of State said. We have achieved a fantastic settlement for the arts, with an 11% decrease only and a significant increase in lottery funding of 43%.

Exercise and Fitness (Female Participation)

Jo Swinson: What proportion of sports funding provided by his Department was allocated to promoting exercise and fitness for women at grass-roots level in the latest period for which figures are available.

Hugh Robertson: Promoting female participation in sport is a key priority for the whole sport plans. In addition, a number of projects have exercise and fitness elements to help create a stepping stone into sport. Examples include
	British Cycling’s breeze and sky ride programmes, England Athletics’ informal running networks and the Lawn Tennis Association’s cardio tennis.

Jo Swinson: Despite record investment in governing bodies, women’s participation in sport continues to fall. There are welcome initiatives such as the £10 million active women fund, but they still represent a tiny proportion of sports funding. Should we not switch funding more towards grass-roots initiatives and learn from mass-participation events such as race for life, which this year will see 1 million women walking, jogging and running 5 k?

Hugh Robertson: Yes. I absolutely understand the hon. Lady’s point. About two years ago, the previous Government, supported by the Conservative party, set in place the whole sport plans, which are allowing sport governing bodies to drive up participation. They have now been running for two years, and I think we are starting to see the benefits, although it is like trying to turn a juggernaut around. When the half-time analysis is done, we will ensure that we concentrate on areas in which the plans have not succeeded as well as in others, and that will be one of them.

Ian Austin: No one doubts the Minister’s personal commitment to sport, but what assessment has he made of the extent to which opportunities for women, and indeed everybody else, to take part in grass-roots sport will be hugely reduced because sports staff are being made redundant and fees to hire facilities and entry charges to pools, sports halls and leisure centres are being increased? That is a result of cuts to local council budgets that are going too far and too fast, for which both he and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) voted.

Hugh Robertson: The first point about that is the obvious political one. It is pointless to pretend that cuts have been made because the coalition Government are in power and would not have been made had the Labour party been in power. There would have been cuts whoever was in power. We have put in place a series of programmes to ensure that the effect of the cuts is mitigated, including the Places People Play programme and the work that we are doing with the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government on the Localism Bill. That will allow sports clubs to place all sports facilities on which they play on a local community asset register, so that the facilities are offered to them directly before being put on the open market.

BBC Expenditure

Stephen Phillips: What steps he is taking to ensure scrutiny of expenditure by the BBC.

Jeremy Hunt: In September last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) announced full access for the National Audit Office to the BBC accounts, and I am confident that plans will be in place to allow that to happen by November this year in accordance with our departmental business plan.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. At the moment, funding for the World Service comes from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, as a result of which it is subject to scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. When funding for the World Service transfers to the BBC, how will he ensure that those arrangements remain in place?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is exactly why it is important that the National Audit Office has full, unrestricted access to the BBC’s accounts, including the ability to examine its spending on the BBC World Service. I have a meeting with the incoming chairman of the BBC Trust on 9 May, and I will discuss that very point with him then.

Ivan Lewis: Before the election, the Secretary of State said that it would be perverse for local television to receive public subsidy, yet he is forcing the BBC to provide £25 million of licence fee payers’ money to subsidise local TV. Does he not agree that it is perverse, at a time when he is promoting local TV, that the BBC is considering cutting local radio, which is so vibrant and so central to the heart of many of our communities? Can we try to achieve cross-party consensus and have a dialogue with the BBC about the importance of BBC local radio to many of our communities?

Jeremy Hunt: The question is about value for money and how the BBC spends the licence fee, and I am very confident that the agreement that I secured with the BBC last autumn will lead to efficiency savings and better use of licence fee payers’ money, but should not lead to reductions in core BBC services. I would be very concerned if any plans announced by the BBC were to lead to any such reductions.

John Whittingdale: Although I welcome the moves to increase the NAO’s access to the accounts of the BBC, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor General has written to him to say that he will still not have the ability to decide what to do and when to do it. Does he agree that that ability is essential if the NAO is to have the genuinely unfettered access that he has promised?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree that the NAO should have unfettered access to the BBC accounts. I take heart from the comments that the incoming chairman of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, made to my hon. Friend’s Committee, when he said that he wanted the NAO to have full, unrestricted access and to be able to go where it wished to ensure and scrutinise value for money at the BBC.

Women’s Football

Tracey Crouch: What steps he is taking to promote women’s football.

Hugh Robertson: I spoke at the launch of the new FA women’s super league at Wembley on 11 April to show my support for the new league. My Department also remains committed to investing in all levels of the women’s game. Of the £25.5 million funding allocated to the Football Association to grow the grass roots, £2.4 million is exclusively for the development of girls and women’s football over the four-year period 2009-13.

Tracey Crouch: Given the successful launch of the FA women’s super league and the positive impact it is already having on the women’s game, does the Minister share my frustration that, as it stands, there will be no mainstream broadcast coverage of this year’s women’s world cup in Germany? Will he do all he can to secure an agreement between those involved in broadcast negotiations, so that that situation can be rectified as soon as possible?

Hugh Robertson: The simple answer to that is yes, of course I will. There are two very important elements to that: first, the establishment of the women’s super league; and, secondly, ensuring it receives the necessary profile. Now that the league is established, I hope that the profile, and very soon in its wake a broadcaster, will follow.

Public Libraries

Yvonne Fovargue: What plans he has for the future of the statutory duty on local authorities to make adequate provision for public libraries.

Edward Vaizey: By encouraging reading, providing access to information and representing a focus for community activity, public library services contribute significantly to the national cultural landscape. They deserve statutory protection. There are no proposals to remove the duty on local authorities to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service.

Yvonne Fovargue: Many older people in Makerfield who signed petitions to save their libraries told me that their introduction to the internet, and indeed their subsequent use of it, was at their local library. How will the Government ensure that library closures and cuts to the library service do not adversely affect people who otherwise do not have access to the internet?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. People access internet services in the library, and I hope that local authorities take that into account when they consider changes to public library services. Of course, UK Online centres and many other community services also provide access to the internet.

James Gray: Is the Minister aware that prudent, Conservative-controlled councils such as Wiltshire county council—my council—are, far from cutting library services in these difficult times, expanding them, and expanding the hours for which libraries are open?

Edward Vaizey: I am aware of Wiltshire county council’s effective stewardship of its library services, and indeed of its ambitious plans for broadband, if I may combine the two points made by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue). Local authorities of every political persuasion up and down the country are keeping their libraries open, and understand what an effective public library service can bring to their community.

Olympics (Economic Effects)

Graham Stringer: What recent assessment he has made of the economic effects of the London 2012 Olympics on the regions of England other than London and the south-east.

Hugh Robertson: The whole of the UK stands to gain from the wide range of opportunities created by the London 2012 Olympics. The Olympic Delivery Authority has 53 suppliers in the north-west alone, including Broughton Controls Ltd just outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which supplies CCTV systems in the park. Many more form part of an extensive supply chain. However, opportunities extend beyond that. So far, six national Olympic and Paralympic committees have signed contracts to train in the north-west, including the Australian swimming team and the USA basketball team, so the north-west is making a massive and important contribution to London 2012.

Graham Stringer: I am sure that the Minister is right on those specifics, but the previous Administration commissioned a report by Dr Adam Blake of Nottingham university that showed that overall there would be a net negative impact on the English regions of £4 billion—the look on the Minister’s face tells me that he has never heard of the report.
	The report was produced at a time of prosperity. Is it not time that the Minister had it updated so that the Government can take action to right that undoubted economic wrong?

Hugh Robertson: I have been rumbled—I was looking at the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) in the hope that she might help me out, but she is looking pretty blank. The best thing I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will dig the report out. It was not part of the handover brief that I received. Anybody who suggests that Manchester and the area around it is anything other than a vital part of the sporting infrastructure of this country is talking nonsense. The north-west, and particularly Manchester, will be at the centre of this great national sporting celebration.

Efficiency Savings

Philip Hollobone: What mechanisms his Department has used to identify efficiency savings since May 2010.

Jeremy Hunt: My Department has one of the most ambitious plans for efficiency savings in Whitehall, having committed to reduce our costs by 50%. By doing that, we have been able to reduce our cuts to the majority of front-line cultural and sporting organisations to just 15%.

Philip Hollobone: Is it the Secretary of State’s ambition to make his the most efficient Whitehall Department and, if so, how confident is he that he will achieve it?

Jeremy Hunt: It is absolutely my objective, and I wish to pay tribute to the officials in my correspondence department who have managed to increase the proportion of correspondence replied to within 48 hours to more than 60%, which is incredibly impressive. My hon. Friend sets an example for all of us with his own frugality and Labour Members who were Ministers in the previous Government should perhaps pause and reflect on the way in which they used taxpayers’ money. In this Department they spent more than £300,000 on ministerial cars: we spent just £8,000 on minicabs. They spent more than £100,000 on hospitality: we halved it—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must resume his seat. The general point has been explicitly made. Question time must not be abused and I know that the Secretary of State, who takes Parliament seriously, will not try that with me.

Broadband

Don Foster: What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the contribution of the BBC to the provision of high speed broadband.

Edward Vaizey: Following discussions at official level with the BBC and BBC Trust, the BBC agreement is being amended to reflect its new funding obligations arising from the television licence fee settlement, including the obligations related to support for broadband roll-out. The draft text of the amended agreement is currently with my Secretary of State for approval.

Don Foster: May I take this opportunity to congratulate all the staff who have worked so hard to help to ensure that tomorrow will be a great day for the royal family, especially the royal couple, as well as a great boost to UK tourism? Does the Minister agree that, with only 1% of households currently having high-speed broadband, if we are to achieve our target of being the best in Europe by 2015, we have to drive up demand? Does it therefore make sense for the BBC to use some of its ring-fenced licence fee money for that very purpose?

Edward Vaizey: The right hon. Gentleman makes an effective point. May I also take this opportunity to thank the many people I met in Bath for making my visit to his constituency at the beginning of the month so enjoyable? As he knows, Martha Lane Fox is leading the Race Online 2012 campaign to encourage as many people as possible to get online. Public libraries, through the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, have set a target of getting 500,000 people online, and I know that the BBC is pushing forward interesting initiatives to encourage people to get online, which I discuss with it regularly.

Chi Onwurah: The Government have abandoned the commitment to universal broadband by 2012 and instead trumpet their achievements in rolling out superfast broadband. However, in recent correspondence, I was told that the only way to monitor the progress of the delivery of superfast broadband was to check the website regularly. Will the
	Minister explain how progress on the delivery of superfast broadband can be monitored, and how it is being publicised?

Edward Vaizey: We will regularly monitor progress on superfast broadband on several fronts, including cost, access, take-up and speed. British Telecom deserves to be congratulated as it is now rolling out superfast broadband to 90,000 homes a week, which I think is the fastest roll-out anywhere in the world. I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I hope that she will soon be able to have a meeting with Broadband Delivery UK to raise these issues directly.

Rugby League World Cup

David Mowat: What financial support the Government plan to provide for the 2013 rugby league world cup; and if he will make a statement.

Hugh Robertson: I met with the executive chairman and chief executive of the rugby football league on 7 April to discuss the 2013 world cup. I am keeping the funding situation under review pending the decision by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, which is due by the end of May.

David Mowat: The Minister will be aware that funding from the Northwest Regional Development Agency is in jeopardy. If that funding does not materialise, can the Minister assure the House that he will stand behind the coalition agreement and continue to support the world cup from his Department?

Hugh Robertson: Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. At the meeting we discussed the various options that would be available. At the moment, I want to concentrate on getting the funding that was promised, and committed to, by the Northwest Regional Development Agency for the rugby league world cup—[ Interruption. ] No, it has the funding to cover the world cup, if it chooses to do so, and I hope that it will because of the benefit to that region.

Helen Jones: When I raised this matter in October, the Minister, as I recall, promised me that he would treat both codes equally when allocating funding for the two world cups. Will he pledge to stick to that promise, and will he ensure that towns such as Warrington benefit from the world cup by hosting some of the matches?

Hugh Robertson: Absolutely. I made the commitment to the hon. Lady, and I have stuck by it. I followed it up with a letter to the rugby football league. It has been down to see me, and there is no question of our treating the two codes differently. The issue here arises from a tranche of funding that was promised by the Northwest Regional Development Agency, but which it has now threatened to withdraw. Clearly I want to get that money out of it, and we will do everything possible to bring this home.

Local Radio

Tristram Hunt: What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio.

Luciana Berger: What discussions he has had with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio.

Jim Cunningham: If he will discuss with representatives of the BBC Trust future provision of daytime local radio services; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: No discussions have been held with the BBC Trust on the future of local radio, and nor are we planning any such discussions. However, this issue was the subject of a recent lengthy debate in the House, and we urge the BBC to take account of the views raised by many hon. Members.

Tristram Hunt: It is absolutely right that BBC operational independence remains, but the BBC Trust needs to understand that when so much money is spent on over-inflated BBC manager and presenter salaries, particularly those imposing super-injunctions, cutting excellent local radio stations, such as BBC Stoke, which are so vital to community identity, is simply not acceptable.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Had that statement been made by a Conservative, it would have been seen as an unwarranted attack on the BBC. However, I am glad that there is cross-party agreement on concerns about the level of BBC salaries, even if he has ruled out further appearances on the Andrew Marr programme.

Luciana Berger: Of the 40 BBC local radio stations, BBC Radio Merseyside is the most listened to outside London. We know that the Secretary of State has shown his passion for local media in his promotion of local television. What are he and the Minister doing specifically to ensure that 24-hour BBC radio programming continues?

Edward Vaizey: This is the second time this month that the hon. Lady has praised BBC Radio Merseyside in the House. I hope that she is reaping the benefits as a result. As I have said, it is not for the Government to tell the BBC what to do. However, my understanding is that some of these reforms, which are only proposals—and I genuinely think that the BBC does listen to hon. Members’ views—are driven more by concerns about content than concerns about saving money.

Jim Cunningham: Is the Minister saying that Coventry and Warwickshire radio, which provides a valuable local service in the Coventry area, will not be amalgamated with Radio 5 Live? Can I take it from his answer that that is what he is saying?

Edward Vaizey: What the hon. Gentleman can take from my answer is that the BBC is making a series of proposals that would need to be approved by the BBC Trust, and
	that I know from my own campaigning to save 6Music that the views of hon. Members can have some influence on BBC decisions.

Sarah Newton: I understand what the Minister is saying about it being for the BBC Trust to make decisions about how to cut and organise services, but will he send out a message loud and clear to the BBC Trust that it should not be cutting BBC local radio, which is listened to in Cornwall by more people than listen to BBC Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3 or Radio 4?

Edward Vaizey: I think that my hon. Friend, in her inimitable way, has sent out a message loud and clear to the BBC Trust.

Duncan Hames: We did, indeed, have an excellent debate in Westminster Hall on this subject the other week. Does the Minister agree that in Corsham, Melksham, Winsley, Holt and across rural Wiltshire people appreciate that in BBC local radio they have programming that gets out of the cities and reflects the varied interests of people in the countryside of our fine country?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend made similar points in the debate at the beginning of April, and again I hope that he has reaped the rewards. That debate was also an important opportunity to congratulate him on his then forthcoming nuptials, although I am not on top of them enough to know whether they have now occurred—[Laughter.]

Youth Development (Football)

Hugh Bayley: What steps his Department is taking to support youth development in professional football clubs.

Hugh Robertson: Why is it me who has to follow that answer from my hon. Friend? I am not on top of anything!
	My Department’s priority is to continue to invest significant sums in grass-roots football—very important as it is—and between 2009 and 2013 we will invest £25.5 million via the Football Association’s whole sport plan and £47 million in the Football Foundation. This funding will help to strengthen youth development programmes.

Hugh Bayley: I am pleased that Sport England is spending £25 million on football youth development, but all the money goes to richer clubs in the Football League. None of it goes to the seven non-league clubs that have professional youth development programmes. In November the Minister advised me and colleagues from all parties representing the other, smaller clubs to raise the matter with Sport England and the Football Association. We have done so, but we are no further forward. Would the Minister be willing to meet a cross-party delegation of MPs representing constituencies covering those clubs to discuss the matter further?

Hugh Robertson: In theory, yes, of course I would. However, the important thing is that these funding decisions are made, very properly, by the sport’s national
	governing bodies. That was the central point of the whole sport plan: they are given a sum of money that is measured against a set of direct objectives, and it is up to those bodies to decide how to spend it. So in theory, yes, I am prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman, but I would need extraordinarily good evidence to try to contradict a professional judgment made by a sport about where best to spend its money to drive up participation.

Topical Questions

Julian Huppert: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: This House has already expressed its good wishes to the royal couple for tomorrow’s events. I know that we would also wish to express our good wishes to the 500,000 people planning to go to street parties who are anxiously looking at the clouds. After my earlier slap on the wrist I hesitate to crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, but as Culture Secretary, I would like to read a couple of lines from the nation’s greatest playwright to honour the happy couple. These come from sonnet 136 by Shakespeare:
	“Make but my name thy love, and love that still,
	And then thou lovest me for my name is ‘Will’.”

Julian Huppert: I am not sure that I can follow that quite so elegantly. I understand the argument for controls on ambush marketing in the forthcoming Olympic games, but what assurances can the Secretary of State give the House and the general public that they will be treated sensitively and that people will not be dealt with heavy handedly if they happen to wear clothing with the wrong label, eat food of the wrong brand, or try to pay for things with the wrong credit card?

Jeremy Hunt: I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will apply the rules sensitively. Everyone wants the Olympics to be a success, as they want the royal wedding tomorrow to be a success. Peer pressure from crowds is one of the best ways of ensuring that people behave sensibly on such occasions, although I fully take on board his points.

Gloria De Piero: When we are cutting spending on everything outside the House of Commons, will the Minister consider freezing spending on the House of Commons and Government art collection for the lifetime of this Parliament? Surely what money there is would be better spent on struggling libraries, theatre groups, galleries and other cultural organisations across Britain that are enjoyed by millions.

Edward Vaizey: We have frozen spending on the Government art collection for two years. However, let me take this opportunity to say that the Government art collection is a great jewel in the crown of this nation, and I would urge the hon. Lady to go and see it. It is inimitably British, and was set up in the 19th century because the Clerk of the Works decided that it was cheaper to buy paintings to cover the damp on the walls than to replace the wallpaper.

Philip Hollobone: What is the Secretary of State’s initial assessment of the success or otherwise of the ticket application process for the London Olympics?

Hugh Robertson: The ticket application process has been an outstanding success. More than 20 million Olympic tickets have been applied for, with more than 1.8 million people applying.

Linda Riordan: What steps are the Government taking to ensure that more people have broadband access at home? Thousands of my constituents still do not have access, despite the Government’s warm words.

Edward Vaizey: I hear what the hon. Lady says. The Government have set aside £530 million of funding to increase the roll-out of broadband. We have four pilots already announced that are up and running, and we have received, I think, 25 applications for a second wave of pilots, which we are due to announce at the end of May.

Amber Rudd: I am sorry to say that many colleagues and Members may have missed the extraordinary sight of nearly 100 Morris dancers, Green men and Bogies up from Hastings to make the point that we do not want to move our bank holiday, because it is so important to tourism and the commercial reality of Hastings. Does the Minister agree that this strength of feeling demonstrates that he should reflect carefully on whether to move that bank holiday?

John Penrose: I was delighted to accept a petition from the assembled throng of Morris men, Green men and everyone else from Hastings, and I made the point to them at the time that the Government are determinedly neutral on this issue. We want to consult on the various options. The country has not had a proper debate about this for decades, if not longer, and we are therefore consulting from a neutral position, rather than with a preferred option at this point.

John Robertson: The Secretary of State mentioned that the Olympics were going to help the whole country. May I ask what is going to happen to the surplus tickets for Olympic events and suggest that he look towards the state secondary schools, so that children who might not normally have access to such events can have a chance to go to them? This could help with the legacy that he hopes to create.

Hugh Robertson: Providing tickets for children is a key priority of the ticketing process. There is a pay-your-age scheme, and I tried it myself on Sunday night. I have a three-and-a-half-year-old who will shortly be four, so I paid £4 for his ticket. There is provision within the process. A ballot will take place, and anyone who is unsuccessful will get preferential treatment in the next round.

Martin Vickers: During the recess, I met Mr Owen Taylor, the owner and operator of a number of family amusement arcades in Cleethorpes and other east coast arcades. He is concerned about the changing face of those resorts, with higher stake money and larger prizes creating a risk of drawing young, vulnerable people into the gambling habit. Will the Minister agree to meet a delegation consisting of Mr Taylor, myself and others to discuss this matter? During such a meeting, we could perhaps discuss other initiatives that the Government have in mind for resorts such as Cleethorpes.

John Penrose: We take any concerns about gambling, particularly problem gambling, very seriously. When considered on an international basis, British levels of problem gambling are comparatively low, although there is obviously no room for complacency. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents as necessary.

Hugh Bayley: The current BBC experiment to have all the local radio stations in Yorkshire carrying the same programme at lunchtimes is not local, and we already have regional television. Does the Minister agree that the licence fee should be used for programming that would not otherwise be broadcast, and that that should include BBC local radio?

Edward Vaizey: Hon. Members have made their concerns very clear about reforms to local radio by the BBC, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks will be heard. I am afraid I do not know the specifics of what is happening in Yorkshire. At the beginning of April, I made a very interesting visit to BBC Radio Norfolk in Norwich, and the working of a local news operation was a wonder to behold.

David Nuttall: Will the Secretary of State join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field)—and, no doubt, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis)—in congratulating Bury FC on its promotion at the weekend, and in wishing it well in division one?

Hugh Robertson: Yes.

Jonathan Edwards: There is significant support among players and supporters in Wales for the creation of a Welsh national cricket team to compete in the one-day world cup and the Twenty20 world cup. A Welsh national team competed in the 1979 International Cricket Council trophy, so there is a precedent for this. Will the Minister raise this matter with the England and Wales Cricket Board to see whether this ambition can be achieved without endangering Glamorgan’s first-class status or the SWALEC stadium’s status as a test venue?

Hugh Robertson: The answer to that lay in the question. We have an England and Wales Cricket Board, and it would also be extraordinarily difficult to do that without endangering Glamorgan’s first-class status or the ability of the ground to compete for test matches. Traditionally, for many years, Welsh players have competed for England,
	although there are none at the moment. I imagine that Robert Croft was the last one to do so, and I hope that there will be many more in the future. Hugh Morris, the director of cricket at the ECB, was a Glamorgan player.

Iain Stewart: The Minister will be aware that the London Mozart Players, one of the finest chamber orchestras in the country, is facing closure. Will he agree to meet Hilary Davan Wetton, the associate conductor, whom I know through his connection with the equally fine Milton Keynes City Orchestra, to see whether a short-term solution can be found to allow the orchestra to survive while we work out a long-term solution?

Edward Vaizey: I know Hilary Davan Wetton of old, and have the utmost respect for him, but I have to say that I do not think it would be appropriate for me to have such a meeting. These decisions are taken by the Arts Council at arm’s length from the Government, and the right people for Mr Davan Wetton to meet would be representatives of the Arts Council.

Sheila Gilmore: In the light of the considerable concerns arising from the ongoing criminal investigations into phone hacking in the News International stable, is the Secretary of State now minded to postpone his decision on the future of BSkyB until such time as those criminal investigations have been concluded?

Jeremy Hunt: The decision I have to take about the Sky merger relates to media plurality, and we are in the process of taking that decision. I am very concerned about the news about phone hacking. It is a criminal offence. Two people have already gone to prison and three people have been arrested. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the police must follow their investigations wherever they lead because the public must have confidence that, with a free press, the press use that freedom responsibly.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Ministerial Statements

Peter Bone: If he will bring forward proposals to implement the recommendations of the Procedure Committee relating to ministerial statements.

George Young: I have sent the Government’s response on its report to the Procedure Committee, which will be published in due course. It would be for the Backbench Business Committee to find time to debate proposals to reform ministerial statements.

Peter Bone: Under the last Government, it was routine for ministerial statements to be leaked to the press. There was a media grid and they were leaked, before a statement was made, in a routine manner. Unfortunately, that has continued under this Government. Until we have sanctions against Ministers for leaking, we will never get the problem under control. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether he thinks the proposals of the Procedure Committee go far enough?

George Young: I recall the sanctions that my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech of 20 July: one was to string Ministers up from the roof and the other was to put them in stocks in Parliament square. I think even the Whips would agree that that was going slightly over the top. The Government’s view is that there are enough sanctions at the moment. A Minister can be summoned to the House in response to an urgent question; he can be grilled by a departmental Select Committee; and, under the arrangements we have just introduced, the Backbench Business Committee can table a motion for debate, including a motion deploring a Minister’s behaviour. Our view is that enough sanctions are already available.

Greg Knight: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the circumstances surrounding the preparation of this report were rather unusual in that it was, in effect, commissioned by the House, following a debate and a motion before the Chamber, which he supported? One does expect the Government to be accommodating on this matter. In an attempt to move this issue forward, may I invite him to return to the Procedure Committee for further discussions—hopefully sooner rather than later?

George Young: I would be delighted to respond to my right hon. Friend’s invitation and attend his Committee at the earliest possible convenience.

House Procedures

Greg Hands: If he will assess the merits of the provision of training on the procedures of the House for hon. Members who are former Ministers.

David Heath: No such assessment has been made, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I would be happy to receive representations on the issue.

Greg Hands: The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) has spoken only once in this Chamber in the past year—

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply want to establish that the hon. Gentleman has notified the Member in question because that is the proper course of action. It needs to be made clear to the House, rather than simply privately, that that has been done.

Greg Hands: Thank you for that ruling, Mr Speaker; I copied you in on the notification.

Mr Speaker: Order. Let me repeat the point. It is not a matter of private communication, but the responsibility of the Member to notify the House that the Member in question has been notified. Private considerations and communications do not come into it.

Greg Hands: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	That was in stark contrast to the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major, who used to speak monthly after he stood down. You will know, Mr Speaker, that yesterday saw the installation of the official photo of the right
	hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in No. 10 Downing street. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree to acquire a copy of the photo for identification purposes to use in this Chamber in case the former Prime Minister decides to come down and participate.

David Heath: I am not sure that we necessarily need to go into that. I did see the picture and thought it looked rather nice; there was almost a smile. On the serious issue of training for former Ministers, I am sure that support could be made available if it were requested, and it might be welcomed, because when people leave office they often find that they forget some things.

Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Simon Hughes: What plans he has for pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation proposed by the Government; and if he will make a statement.

David Heath: The Government have made clear our intention to improve the quality of legislation. We have already published the draft Defamation Bill and two draft Detention of Terrorist Subjects (Temporary Extensions) Bills. We have also informed the Liaison Committee of our intention to invite pre-legislative scrutiny on the Financial Services Bill, the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, the House of Lords Bill, the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, and the Political Reform Bill.

Simon Hughes: I welcome that reply, but can I establish that the Government intend all Government legislation to be published in draft as well as, later, in substantive form for the remainder of the current Parliament, so that pre-legislative scrutiny can take place all the time? That is clearly the best practice.

David Heath: We are committed to publishing Bills in draft whenever possible, but the aspiration to publish more of next Session’s potential Bills in draft must be balanced against the need to devote sufficient resources to getting this Session’s Bills right. We hope to increase the proportion of Bills published in draft during the current Parliament, and by the end of this Session we expect to have published more Bills in draft than the average number under the last Administration.

Helen Jones: As the Government are so keen on pre-legislative scrutiny, can the dear Deputy Leader explain why they did not use the procedure in the case of the Health and Social Care Bill? Would that not have had numerous advantages? It would have prevented the Government from introducing legislation that had not been thought through, it would have allowed the Liberal Democrats to pretend that they were being listened to, and, more important, it might have saved the NHS. Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise for that abject failure, and ensure that the House is given proper time to debate the amendments to the Bill when the Government present them?

David Heath: I rather like the idea of being a dear Leader, or a dear Deputy Leader. I think it lends a certain cachet to the office.
	The serious response to the hon. Lady’s question is that, with a new Administration, it is inevitable that some Bills will not receive pre-legislative scrutiny because they must be put into action. In the case of the Bill that she mentioned, however, a period of reflection is now being entered into, and I think that it will be extremely valuable. It will ensure that we hear the advice of everyone who is concerned with getting the Bill right.

Politics (Cost Reductions)

Brandon Lewis: What recent discussions he has had with the Deputy Prime Minister on the implications for the House of Commons of the Government’s programme for reducing the cost of politics.

David Heath: The Leader of the House and I regularly discuss such issues with ministerial colleagues. Since the general election the Government have cut ministerial pay by 5%, steered through legislation that will reduce the size of the House of Commons, cut the cost of special advisers, and scrapped the use of dedicated ministerial cars in all but exceptional cases. The House has played its part, with Members agreeing to the freezing of their salaries, and the Commission is overseeing a programme to save at least 17% by 2014-15 while ensuring that the House remains able to scrutinise the Executive effectively.

Brandon Lewis: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer, and particularly for his comment about ministerial cars. Like many other people, I believe that if we take care of the pennies, the pounds take care of themselves. Will the Deputy Leader of the House say a little more about the impact of the change in the ministerial cars system?

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, on 24 May 2010 the Government announced that in all but exceptional cases Ministers would no longer have dedicated cars and drivers. That is not to say that no cars are ever used—there are times when Ministers require the use of a car—but I think I can modestly say that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and I set something of an example in that we hardly, if ever, use ministerial cars: we prefer to use our bikes or walk.

Hugh Bayley: If Members of Parliament base their staff in their constituencies they must pay rent, rates and telephone, heating, lighting and photocopying bills, but if they base their staff at the House of Commons, all those assets come as a free resource. Will the Deputy Leader of the House consult representatives of the other parties, and try to find a way in which to get rid of the perverse incentive to base staff in London, where they cost the public purse rather more?

David Heath: I am always happy to discuss such matters with anyone, but that is now a matter for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is certainly not a matter for Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Renewable Energy

John Mann: What assessment the House of Commons Commission has made of the potential for use of renewable energy technology on the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: In 2005, a study was conducted on the potential for solar photovoltaic and hot water systems on the roofs of the Palace of Westminster. However, it was ruled out because the financial payback was 125 years and the equipment had a life expectancy of 30 years. The current mechanical and electrical project has already installed new energy-efficient pumps and motors, and the medium to long-term plans include solar photovoltaics, greywater harvesting, borehole water cooling, and combined heat and power.

John Mann: We do not want windmills here just as much as I do not want them cluttering the landscape of Bassetlaw, but there must be scope for solar energy, and not least for air source heat pumps, in the Palace of Westminster. Is it not time that we got our act together and started using renewables far more on the parliamentary estate?

John Thurso: I am very happy to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to inform him that these issues are at the heart of the project that is ongoing within the Facilities Department. All of these options are considered for ongoing programmes and where repairs and renewals are undertaken or where capital investment is made.

Duncan Hames: Does my hon. Friend agree both that much has changed since the earlier assessments, not least the Government’s recent announcement that public bodies will be able to benefit from feed-in tariffs, and that rather than looking to the medium to long term, we ought to be taking a much more urgent approach to achieving renewable energy for the parliamentary estate?

John Thurso: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and, indeed, the infrastructure to accommodate the measures I referred to in my first answer will be installed to take advantage of the technologies as they mature and as paybacks improve, as they currently are doing.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Hand-held Devices

Kevin Brennan: What representations he has received on the use of hand-held devices during proceedings of the House and its Committees.

David Heath: I am very conscious of the fact that anything I say on this subject may be tweeted and used in evidence against me. The Leader of the House has received no representation on this matter, which is ultimately a matter for the House. The Procedure Committee has produced a sensible proposal in its report. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wrote to the Chair of the Committee saying that we would both support a motion in the terms proposed by the Committee to be debated in Back-Bench time.

Kevin Brennan: I commend the report of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and his Committee on this matter. Would it, however, be technically possible to install a screen in the Chamber so MPs could follow a live Twitter feed during the course of our debates and therefore be able to see what people are saying about us, including our own colleagues?

David Heath: It is an intriguing thought, but I suspect there are enough distractions in the Chamber already.

James Gray: While I broadly support the use of electronic devices for urgent messages and the like, I divided the Procedure Committee on the matter and voted against the report, simply because I took the view that if we were all to be sitting here tweeting, checking our e-mails and reading newspapers on screens, we would not be paying proper attention to the debates we were sent here to engage in. I therefore ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether he is ready to respond to the Committee’s report, and let me add that I hope his response will be more considered than the report’s conclusions.

David Heath: I do think this is a House matter, and a matter for you, Mr Speaker—and you have given an indication of your own thoughts on it. I understand that the Chair of the Committee has asked the Backbench Business Committee for time to discuss the report, and I think it is appropriate that the House has a debate on the issue, takes on board the contrary views on either side of the argument, and then comes to a decision.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Questions

Anne McIntosh: For what reason the time allocated to questions for oral answer to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been reduced to 45 minutes; and if he will review that decision.

George Young: Following a request from the official Opposition, the Government increased the time allocation for questions for oral answer to the Deputy Prime Minister. As a consequence of the pressures on the time available for oral questions, it was necessary for changes to be made to the rota. The status of the oral questions rota will, of course, be kept under review.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I know that you, Mr Speaker, and, indeed, the Leader of the House and the whole House, put great store on there being sufficient supervision of
	Departments of State. In asking the Leader of the House to review his decision, I would suggest that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is a Department whose responsibilities bear greater scrutiny than 45 minutes allows. We have had the unfortunate incident over the sale of forestry and a number of delayed decisions, which we on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee are not able to consider because of the delay before the summer recess—I am thinking here of bovine tuberculosis, the natural environment White Paper and the water White Paper. Please will the Leader of the House review his decision and give proper scrutiny of that great Department?

George Young: May I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does, as Chair of the appropriate Select Committee, in holding that Department to account? Of course we will keep this matter under review, but I just say to her that the time available for DEFRA questions is longer than that for 10 of the other oral questions sessions.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Recycling

Philip Hollobone: What recent progress the House of Commons Commission has made in improving the recycling of paper and other materials used on the House of Commons part of the parliamentary estate.

John Thurso: The amount of waste recycled in 2010-11 was 49.2%, and the amount of paper and cardboard that has been recycled has more than doubled since records started in 2002. The two Houses are due to let a new waste collection contract this summer, and this will require the contractor to work in partnership to meet the waste reduction and recycling targets set by the House. The new contract will also include a pilot scheme to recycle compostable waste.

Philip Hollobone: What are the recycling targets set by the House, and can we not do far better than we are doing at the moment?

John Thurso: Parliament’s recycling target for office waste was set at 60% for 2010-11. The actual recycling rate achieved in the year was below target, at 49.2%, largely because of a significant reduction in the recorded amount of glass waste and, thus, in the proportion of total office waste recycled. The House is looking to recycle 75% of office waste by 2020-21.

Rifle Range

Diana Johnson: What the cost to the House of Commons Service of the rifle range on the parliamentary estate was in the latest year for which figures are available.

John Thurso: The range is situated in the House of Lords, so there is no direct cost to the House of Commons other than in respect of that percentage of the estate which is paid for by the House of Commons.

Diana Johnson: Given the continued sniping about some of the family-friendly measures that have been introduced, such as the crèche, and the need for the House of Commons and the House of Lords to make
	cuts to their budgets, are we not shooting ourselves in the foot by continuing to pay for a rifle range in the House of Lords?

John Thurso: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempt to brown the covey, but I suggest that she has to take a more targeted approach. This is a matter entirely for their lordships.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commending 2 May will be:
	Monday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 3 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No.3) Bill (day 1).
	Wednesday 4 May—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No.3) Bill (day 2).
	Thursday 5 May—General debate on social housing in London. The business has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 9 May will include:
	Monday 9 May—Opposition day [unallotted day] [half day]. There will be a half-day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve an instruction relating to the Welfare Reform Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to trafficking.
	Tuesday 10 May—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
	Wednesday 11 May—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.
	Thursday 12 May—Business nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 13 May—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 5, 12 and 19 May will be:
	Thursday 5 May—A general debate in which Members may raise any issue. This debate, nominated by the Backbench Business Committee, will follow a similar pattern to the pre-recess Adjournment debates in which Members were able to raise any issue. Members are advised to consult the Order Paper to seek information on how to provide advance notice of the subject they intend to raise. The debate will be responded to by the Deputy Leader of the House.
	Thursday 12 May—Subject to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Thursday 19 May—A debate on the Severn crossings toll, followed by a debate on the constitutional implications for Wales of the Government’s proposals for constitutional reform.
	Finally, I am sure that the whole House will want to wish Prince William and Kate Middleton the very best for tomorrow and a long and happy life together.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. On behalf of the Opposition, I join him in sending best wishes to the happy couple for tomorrow.
	Members welcomed Tuesday’s statement from the Foreign Secretary on Libya and the wider middle east, including the very disturbing developments in Syria,
	which I am sure those on both sides of the House will wish to condemn. I trust that we will continue to be kept informed.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us when he will announce final sitting dates up to the next Queen’s Speech and on what date it will be held? Will he tell us when he expects the Health and Social Care Bill to return to the House following the current pause? As the Public Accounts Committee warned this week that there is no plan to deal with the risks being taken with the health service, and virtually everyone at the Royal College of Nursing conference expressed no confidence in the Secretary of State for Health, even this Government must realise that they have a very big problem on their hands. Mind you, Mr Speaker, the nurses were only taking their lead from the Prime Minister, who lost confidence in the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) quite some time ago. The Health Secretary must be desperately hoping that his famous mantra,
	“no decisions about me without me”,
	will apply to his own career prospects.
	Will the Leader of the House clarify the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister at this week’s listening event on the NHS reforms? He is reported as having said:
	“We will make changes, we’ll make significant and substantive changes to the legislation which at the moment is—if you like—it’s suspended in the House of Commons”.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us how long this suspension will last, whether there will be an oral statement on the outcome of the listening exercise before Report and when the Prime Minister will finally admit, as the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has now done publicly, that NHS waiting times are rising as a result of these botched plans?
	Talking of which, when can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills on university tuition fees, given that for some reason he did not take part in yesterday’s debate? The Government’s promise to students and parents could not have been clearer: fees of £9,000 would be charged only in exceptional circumstances. Now we know that that was another broken promise. Of the 80 universities that have so far revealed their plans, more than two thirds propose to charge the £9,000 maximum fee for some or all of their courses. Such is the incompetence of the Government that it seems never to have occurred to them that that would happen, so as well as qualified applicants losing out on university places this year, in future years universities are likely to face either more reductions in funding or fewer places for students as the Government desperately try to balance the books. When are we going to see the long-promised White Paper on higher education? Does its continued absence not prove the folly of pushing through a policy on fees before having determined a policy on higher education?
	May we have a debate on Government policy on placements in Whitehall for those who would not normally get the opportunity to work there? I ask, of course, because a number of Liberal Democrats who have been given work experience as Government Ministers seem to be very unhappy about the way in which they are being treated. Tuesday’s edition of The Times reported that they are being frozen out of decisions within their Departments. One Lib Dem Minister was quoted as saying that he has “no idea” what his boss is doing, a Tory member of the Government has described his Lib
	Dem colleagues as “yapping dogs” and the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has threatened to sue fellow members of the Cabinet. I think the deputy leader of the Lib Dems got it right recently when he admitted:
	“The coalition…is not a love affair, or a marriage or even a meeting of minds.”
	Whatever it is, it is going horribly wrong.
	I wonder whether the Leader of the House could suggest to the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his well-publicised concerns, that he might in this particular case consider taking out a super-injunction to prevent any more of these unseemly revelations and so protect this relationship from further public embarrassment. While he is at it, the Prime Minister could also seek one to cover the news this week that someone is making a musical about the Deputy Prime Minister. I would not wish that breach of privacy on anyone, least of all the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg).

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. The fact that over six months he has not really pressed me on the forthcoming business shows, I think, a general level of satisfaction with the way in which the Government are conducting the business of the House.
	On the serious issue of keeping the House in the picture, the right hon. Gentleman generously recognised that on Tuesday we had a statement from the Foreign Secretary. On the last day before the recess we found Government time for a debate on north Africa and the middle east. Next Tuesday is Foreign Office questions, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will want to keep the House in the picture on the disturbing position in north Africa and the middle east.
	The dates that the right hon. Gentleman asked for will be given in due course, although it may be some time before we announce the date of the end of the Session. I seem to remember asking my predecessor for the dates of the Easter recess right up until the February before, so for him to press me on the date of the possible Dissolution next spring is perhaps just a little premature.
	On the Health and Social Care Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen that we are not planning to have its remaining stages within the next two weeks. There will be adequate time for the House to reflect on any amendments. May I say to him that the building blocks for that Bill were in position under the previous Government—foundation trusts, practice-based commission, patient choice and use of the private sector?
	The right hon. Gentleman then asked a number of questions that were also asked in yesterday’s half-day Opposition day debate on higher education. The issues raised by the Opposition spokesman in that debate were replied to by the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), and it seems to me entirely appropriate that he should deal with that issue.
	On waiting times, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to look at the 2010 annual report from the Department of Health, but it makes it absolutely clear that for admitted patients,
	“The median time waited has been relatively stable around 8 weeks since March 2008, but is subject to seasonality with previous years showing increases in average waiting times in the early part of the calendar year.”
	Likewise, for non-admitted patients,
	“The median time waited has been relatively stable around 4 weeks since March 2008, but is subject to seasonality with previous years showing increases in average waiting times in the early part of the calendar year.”
	The statistics published a fortnight ago for the period up to February confirm that position.
	Concerning the coalition, we have a coalition Government with two parties, and it is my view that there is more cohesion in government between those two parties than there was in the previous one-party Government when the two previous Prime Ministers were at war with each other.
	I was interested to hear what the shadow Leader of the House was up to during the Easter recess. Like many of us, he was campaigning for local government elections, and I see from the Lincolnshire Echothat he was in Lincoln on 22 April. I am not sure what he was wearing, but the report said:
	“The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP visited the city to support Labour’s local election candidates. She joined Birchwood candidate and local campaigner Rosanne Kirk”.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I am not sure that we require any further references to the Lincolnshire Echo or to matters of sartorial taste. What we do need are some questions about the business of the House, and I know that a fine example will be set by Mr Sajid Javid.

Sajid Javid: In February, I visited Syria in a delegation of MPs and we urged Government Ministers there at every opportunity not to ignore the cries for freedom that are sweeping through the region. Sadly, but predictably, they have resorted to violence against their own people. May I ask the Leader of the House to urge the Foreign Secretary to pursue international sanctions immediately against Syria and to urge our ally Turkey to do more? Also, can we have a debate on it?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the Syrian ambassador’s invitation to the royal wedding has been withdrawn.
	My hon. Friend will have an opportunity on Tuesday to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the issue, but he will have seen reports in the press of the discussions that we are having with our allies about the possibility of sanctions against Syria.

David Winnick: I acknowledge that the Foreign Secretary will be asked parliamentary questions when we return on Tuesday, but does the Leader of the House not recognise the need for another debate on the Libyan situation, bearing in mind the general unease about the fact that mission creep and regime change seem to be taking place despite denials by Ministers?
	If I heard rightly that the invitation to the Syrian ambassador—the ambassador of that blood-stained regime—has been withdrawn, I very much welcome that.

George Young: That invitation has indeed been withdrawn. A statement was made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at 11 o’clock.
	The Government are prepared to find time, where appropriate, for debates on the middle east and north Africa. Indeed, we have already found time for such debates. We want to keep the House informed and to give it opportunities to make its views known, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will be prepared to find time for a further debate if necessary.

John Hemming: I have reports that in the Balderstone and Kirkholt ward in Rochdale someone is going around collecting postal ballots, opening them, removing and throwing away the Lib Dem local election vote while leaving the AV vote inside, resealing the envelopes with Sellotape and sending them off. Does the Leader of the House recognise that there remain concerns about the integrity of the postal voting process, and should the law be changed to deal with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations?

George Young: That sounds rather like a criminal offence, and if there is any evidence that it is going on I hope that it will be referred to the police.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent statement next week about the call by France and Italy to reform the operation of the Schengen treaty? Although Britain is not part of Schengen, successive Governments have asked for greater border checks before people reach the UK border. May we have a statement on that very important matter?

George Young: I cannot promise a statement next week, but as I said a moment ago, the Foreign Secretary will be answering questions on Tuesday. If the right hon. Gentleman does not have a question down, he may catch your eye, Mr Speaker, during topical questions. I will forewarn the Foreign Secretary that a question on the subject may be forthcoming from the right hon. Gentleman.

Edward Timpson: With 3.5 million people in the UK—one in 17—suffering from a rare condition at some point in their lives, may we have a debate on how we can support those people and have better care and medical expertise at their disposal in order to help build on the excellent work done by rare disease charities, such as CLIMB in my constituency, which does excellent work on behalf of those with metabolic diseases?

George Young: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, which strikes me as an appropriate matter for a debate in Westminster Hall. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will want to join him in raising the profile of some of the rare diseases that are often ignored within the medical profession and by medical research. Alternatively, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in her place and will
	have heard his request, so he may wish to present himself at her salon at 1 o’clock on a Tuesday to bid for such a debate.

Jenny Chapman: Two hundred manufacturing job losses were announced in Darlington yesterday. When can we have a debate on the Chancellor’s understanding of the word “growth”?

George Young: I am obviously sorry to hear about the loss of jobs in Darlington, but as the hon. Lady will know, 400,000 new jobs have been created in the private sector over the past 12 months, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts a net increase in employment of 900,000 over the next five years, so there is evidence that the private sector is replacing the jobs that are lost in the public sector. I believe that the economy is on the right track.

Chris White: On Good Friday, I had the great pleasure of attending an outstanding performance of the mystery plays at the Playbox theatre in Warwick, which is designed specifically to support young acting talent. It is an excellent example of how theatre can help to engage young people and develop their confidence and other skills, which is extremely valuable for their future careers and contribution to society. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on how we can support and fund such initiatives?

George Young: I applaud the Playbox theatre and the work that it is doing. My hon. Friend is right that we need to do more in that area, which is why the Government recently commissioned Darren Henley to lead an independent review of cultural education.

John Spellar: May I thank the Leader of the House for finally getting a Minister to reply to my persistent questions on the disgraceful claim made by Baroness Warsi that the Conservatives failed to win an overall majority at the general election because of electoral fraud, predominantly in the Asian community? The claim was completely refuted by the Electoral Commission, which reported only two prosecutions and one conviction. However, the reply was from not Baroness Warsi but another Minister, and it did not apologise for, defend or mention her outrageous claims. I realise that Baroness Warsi is a serious embarrassment to the Government, but will the Leader of the House arrange for an oral statement from the Government to come clean about this shabby episode?

George Young: I reject the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks about my noble Friend. He has had a reply from the Minister responsible for electoral administration, who was the appropriate Minister to reply to the allegations he made. He has received that letter, a copy of which I have in front of me, but if he believes that there are further issues he needs to raise, I am sure that he will reply and get a further answer.

Robert Halfon: Can we please have a debate about the achievements of Mrs Thatcher, so that we can kindly educate our coalition allies about how she turned Britain into a nation of home owners, restored our place in the world and crushed militant trade unionism?

George Young: As someone who played a modest role in Baroness Thatcher’s Administration, with a slight hiatus at one point, I disagree with the reported comments of the president of the Liberal Democrat party. The two reforms that were highlighted in the speech, namely the right to buy and the privatisation of the utilities, were actually continued under the succeeding Labour Government, so they cannot have been all bad.

Jeremy Corbyn: I would like the Leader of the House to return to the question of Libya and the middle east. I acknowledge that the Government have made a number of statements on the situation in Libya, but it is very obvious that there has been an enormous amount of mission creep, that British military personnel are now involved in Libya and that increased arms supplies are going to what is now termed the transitional government. We need not just statements to the House, but a debate and a Government motion that can be voted on, because what is happening now is clearly a huge extension to the terms of the motion that we voted on a few weeks ago. Can the Leader of the House assure us that there will be such a debate, with a voteable and amendable motion?

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have provided time for a debate on a motion, so our good faith is there for all to see, but, as I said in response to an earlier question, I would not rule out a repetition of such a debate.

Julian Lewis: Given that the number of children’s heart surgery units will be reduced from 11 to six or seven, and that an NHS consultation document places Southampton in the top two of those 11 for quality ratings, can we have a statement from a Conservative Minister—an appropriate Minister—about why only one of four options being put forward includes the continuation of Southampton’s children’s surgery unit for heart problems? We would not want—would we?—a competition in which the people who won were actually declared the losers, in this field any more than in the general election.

George Young: Like my hon. Friend, I have a constituency interest in Southampton general hospital and I have received a number of letters about the review of children’s heart surgery. Clinical experts consider that one of the core standards for improving care is to undertake a minimum of 400 child heart operations per year and an optimum of 500, and there is uncertainty about whether the Southampton centre can meet that key criterion. The review team is taking evidence about whether Southampton can achieve that in collaboration with the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford, and at this stage it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of individual centres.

Andrew Miller: I do not know whether the Leader of the House has noticed this, but around the back of the Cabinet Office there is a bit of a whiff as the bonfire of the quangos smoulders on. Occasionally, a few things are dragged off and raked from the embers, but serious issues are starting to emerge as a result of some of the quangos that are being absorbed back into Government, given their statutory duties to provide independent advice to the Government. I have had representations from several
	people from several organisations, including the Health Protection Agency, stating a lack of clarity about how the Government are going to deal with the matter. Can we have an urgent debate about that important issue? I believe that the integrity of scientific advice, in particular, could be jeopardised if we do not have the correct formula.

George Young: In one sense we can have an urgent debate, because we will shortly have the Second Reading of the Public Bodies Bill, currently in another place, in which the “bonfire of the quangos” to which the hon. Gentleman refers is taking place. There will be an opportunity to debate our proposals for public bodies and to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place.

James Morris: Can we have a debate about the performance of the retail sector? The high streets in places such as Halesowen, Blackheath, Cradley Heath and Old Hill in my constituency are vital to the local economy, and I am not aware that we have been able to hold a specific debate about the retail sector.

George Young: I welcome the information yesterday that retail sales in volume have increased by 1.3% over the past 12 months and in value by 4.5%. That is some evidence of the recovery to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, and I should welcome such a debate. There will be a debate on the Finance Bill next week, and there may be an opportunity to debate some of the Government’s measures to promote economic recovery.

Valerie Vaz: The New Art Gallery Walsall, in my constituency, has an amazing collection that was started by Jacob Epstein and his family. The gallery is now closed on Sundays, the very day when people can visit, but it costs only £35,000 for it to open then. I have asked the relevant Minister to intervene, but he has refused, so can we have an urgent debate about what powers the Minister has to keep that vital resource open?

George Young: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was present during Culture, Media and Sport questions, but it strikes me that that would have been an appropriate question to have put during that session. I will pass her suggestions on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and see whether there is any role for him, the local authority, the Arts Council or some other funding body to play.

Christopher Pincher: Can we have a debate about local government finance? My local councils, including Staffordshire county council, have succeeded in freezing the council tax while protecting front-line services, yet people throughout the country are rightly concerned about those councils—and we know which party runs them—that are cutting public services while sitting on a huge cash reserve.

George Young: I agree that the purpose of reserves that local authorities hold is to see them through difficult and challenging times such as these. I have noticed that authorities such as Manchester and Liverpool have been cutting services while sitting on very substantial reserves, but I commend the performance of my hon. Friend’s local authority.

Tom Blenkinsop: Can we have a debate about the effects of the Chancellor’s Budget on social and working men’s clubs? Clubs such as the TA club in Guisborough in my constituency provide an affordable venue for working people who need a meeting or reception space for christenings and weddings, and for other community groups. The 20% rate of VAT and the added duty on alcohol have had a severe effect on how much profit the club can bring in to keep that community space open, so can we please have a debate on the Floor of the House about the issue?

George Young: We have just had a very substantial debate about the Budget, and we will deal with parts of the Finance Bill next week, so it might be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to raise those subjects then. I commend the work done by the working clubs in his constituency.

Brandon Lewis: Small and medium-sized businesses play a major role in the economy of Great Yarmouth, particularly with reference to the importance of tourism, and I welcome the Government’s work to target the sector, recognising that it can drive growth. We can do more, however, particularly with regard to regulations, so can we have a debate in the House about the specific needs of SMEs?

George Young: I commend the SMEs in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which are doing such heroic work, and measures have been announced in the Budget. A new capital fund is being set up to help SMEs to access capital, as identified by the Rowlands review; we have announced a moratorium exempting micro-businesses and start-ups from new domestic regulations for three years from 2011; and we are going to drop proposals for specific regulations that would have cost £350 million a year to implement. I am sure that SMEs in my hon. Friend’s constituency will welcome that.

Ian Murray: The Leader of the House will be aware of the Government’s programme to reduce regulations on business, but the Government’s consultative Red Tape Challenge website asks the public whether the Equalities Act 2010, which is primary legislation, should be scrapped. Can we have an urgent statement in the House if that is the Government’s intention?

George Young: We have no plans at the moment for primary legislation on that subject.

Stephen Mosley: Earlier this month Cheshire fire and rescue service was crowned fire service of the year at the inaugural emergency services awards. Cheshire has seen a 73% drop in fire-related injuries, a 64% drop in business fires and more than 300,000 home safety assessments completed over the past five years. Can we have a statement on fire service performance from the Minister responsible, allowing me to highlight the hard work and commitment of Cheshire fire and rescue service staff and to congratulate them?

George Young: I join my hon. Friend—I am sure all Members in his county will—in commending the work of Cheshire fire and rescue service in bringing
	down fire-related injuries. I am sure that because of the fantastic work of that particular service there are people who are alive today who might not otherwise have been.

Thomas Docherty: You will recall, Mr Speaker, that I have previously raised with the Government the excellent report on firearms by the Home Affairs Committee. Can I press the Leader of the House to state whether the Government, when they get round to replying to the report, will simply issue a statement or publish a White Paper on firearms?

George Young: I commend the work that the Home Affairs Committee has done on this important subject, in which I know the hon. Gentleman has a particular interest. The Government will be responding in full to that report, and I expect that to happen at the end of May or in early June. The response will take the normal form of a publication that will be available, and it might then be up to the Backbench Business Committee to decide whether it wanted a debate on the subject.

Matthew Offord: Councils and local authorities are working particularly hard to increase recycling rates in their areas. Is the Leader of the House aware that trade waste is not currently included in recycling rates? Can he advise on what measures the Government have to change that anomaly, and may we have a debate on the wider issue of recycling generally?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I will take up the matter with the Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government to get a detailed response to the proposition that my hon. Friend has shared with the House.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on reforming Prime Minister’s questions? The current Prime Minister sometimes seems to be quite casual—some might even say careless—with the facts at Prime Minister’s questions. If there was a hooter at the Clerk’s desk that sounded every time the Prime Minister made a factual error, that might help to prevent the patronising of people who are just putting him straight with the facts.

George Young: But why should the hooter just be confined to the Prime Minister? Why should it not apply equally to Labour Members?

Bob Blackman: Last Sunday, we heard the very sad news that Sathya Sai Baba had died in India. Sai Baba was a unique Hindu ascetic who was renowned among millions of followers worldwide and hundreds of thousands within the UK. There has been no Government statement issuing an expression of sympathy to the hundreds of thousands of followers in this country who are praying for his soul and for his return. Will my right hon. Friend prevail on the appropriate Government Minister to issue a suitable message of sympathy?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would like to share his comments with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is probably the Minister who has responsibility, to see whether an appropriate tribute might be made.

Diana Johnson: I was recently contacted by my constituent Beryl Wilkinson about the distress caused by the mismanagement by Places for People and Hull city council in dealing with the cuts to the Supporting People grant. May we have a debate on how this coalition cut is hitting councils, housing associations and voluntary groups, but most importantly the vulnerable people whom the grant is supposed to support?

George Young: I am sure that the management of the city of Hull is in much better hands than it was under the previous Labour Government, when it was one of the worst administered local authorities in the world—[ Interruption ]—or rather, in the country. The hon. Lady regularly raises issues about that local authority, but we had a debate on the revenue support grant before the amount was settled, and other local authorities have been able to cope with the allocations that were made without coming to the difficult decisions to which she has referred.

Andrew Bridgen: Many patients in my constituency will have been listening to Labour Members’ comments about NHS waiting times with increasing concern. May we therefore have an urgent debate on NHS waiting times so that I can have an opportunity to reassure my constituents and put facts before politics on this most emotive of issues?

George Young: I very much hope that the Opposition choose the subject of the NHS for their half-day debate on Monday week. I commend to my hon. Friend’s attention the document I have here—the 2010 annual report—which has the statistics, and the press release that was put out earlier this week which brings waiting times up to date. He will also see in a separate publication that there are more cataract operations and more hip replacement operations, and I hope that his constituents will find that reassuring.

Peter Bone: May I urge the Leader of the House seriously to consider having a debate on Libya? The circumstances have changed, as we are now talking about regime change rather than a ceasefire. It would be helpful to the Government to have that debate and to have the support, or otherwise, of the House.

George Young: I have listened to the representations that have been made in all parts of the House for a further debate in Government time. Without giving any assurances now, I would like to share that strong feeling in the House with my colleagues and reflect on whether it might be appropriate to have another debate in Government time on Libya and related matters.

Point of Order

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning in my constituency, a group of 40 police officers arrived at a site, handcuffed one of my constituents and forcibly detained a group of them in a building on the site. They then undertook a search of the site, supposedly for materials that could be used for criminal damage. It appears that raids like this are going on across London at the moment as some form of pre-emptive strike before the royal wedding. The constituents who were detained in my area were to meet me this morning; they are from a group called Transition Heathrow. They are a group of environmentalists who took over a derelict site as part of their campaign against the third runway and have transformed that site into a market garden. It is supported by me and by a number of local councillors and local residents.
	I believe that this disproportionate use of force is unacceptable, and I would urge that a Home Office Minister comes to this House to explain exactly what is happening today and what are the grounds for that action, and also contacts the Metropolitan police commissioner to explain that many of us feel that this is disproportionate and no way to celebrate this joyous wedding.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his point of order. He will understand, and the House will appreciate, that I am very loth to comment on a matter that might be, and probably is, the subject of continuing police inquiries. Moreover, it is not a procedural matter for the Chair. Nevertheless, it is a matter of extreme importance to the hon. Gentleman, and probably to a great many others besides, about which he has registered his concern in the presence of Ministers. I do not know whether a statement will be forthcoming. However, the hon. Gentleman is an extremely experienced Member. There will be ways open for him to pursue this matter through the House, and I rather imagine that he will do so.

London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill

Second  Reading

Hugh Robertson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Since 2006, when the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Bill was passed, enormous progress has been made in preparing London and the rest of the UK for the games. There is, rightly, huge cause for confidence as we look forward to next summer. Politically, the games continue to enjoy broad cross-party support from all parts of the House in the way that was first evident at the time of the bid and subsequently during the passage of the original Bill. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) for her continued support and for all the work she did to promote the Bill and during the early part of the Olympic process. I am also grateful to our coalition partners—and I was going to say to Members from the other, smaller parties, but they have clearly left early to enjoy the royal wedding.
	I will briefly update the House on progress. The build programme is now 70% complete and, I am glad to say, on time and marginally below budget. The Lee valley white water centre, the first of the newly built 2012 venues, was completed last year and opened to the public earlier this month. The construction of the first Olympic park sporting venue, the velodrome, was completed in February this year and handed over to the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games last month. The remaining facilities are on track and nearing completion. If hon. Members have not yet had the opportunity to tour the Olympic park, I strongly encourage them to do so. The scale of what has been achieved, particularly for anybody who remembers the site in 2005, is genuinely impressive. I should like to place on record my thanks to John Armitt, David Higgins—the recently retired chief executive—and the whole of the Olympic Delivery Authority for what they have achieved.
	The deadline for applications for Olympic tickets closed two days ago. We have seen unparalleled levels of interest from people right across the United Kingdom, with over 20 million ticket applications, and public support for the games remains high, particularly in comparison with the experience of previous host cities. Almost a quarter of a million people have applied to be London 2012 games-maker volunteers. I have no doubt that the same atmosphere of celebration that we are seeing for tomorrow’s royal wedding, and which will be seen again in next year’s diamond jubilee, will be seen once again in the build-up to, and during, the games.

Edward Timpson: A concern that has been raised about other sporting events is that, despite high ticket sales, the stadiums have not been full. What guarantees can my hon. Friend give to those who hope to receive tickets that they have the optimum chance of attending the events and, more importantly, that those who wanted to go but cannot do not see empty seats when they watch the Olympics on television?

Hugh Robertson: Given the almost unparalleled level of interest in ticket applications, it is pretty unlikely that anybody who has gone through the process of securing a ticket for London 2012 will not turn up. I think that anybody who has a ticket is disproportionately likely to turn up. We must also remember that these Olympics are different from any others in that 75% of the tickets are available to the general public. There will therefore not be the problems that are seen at some events that have large numbers of corporate seats. We are all well aware of the negative impact that empty stadiums would have. I suspect that we will face the reverse problem and that there will be so much demand for events that there will be a lot of disappointed people who cannot get tickets, and that there will not be empty seats on the day.

Mark Field: To pick up on that point, will the Minister make clear what arrangements there will be for a secondary market for tickets? I appreciate that there are draconian measures to stop ticket touting, but presumably there will be an opportunity for a legitimate secondary market for those who have applied, in the rather complicated way, and who by July or August 2012 realise that they will not be able to take up their allocation.

Hugh Robertson: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is the quid pro quo that if one has tough anti-touting regulations, one has to make it as simple as possible for people who buy tickets in the legitimate expectation that they will attend an event, but who then cannot do so, to exchange their tickets and get their money back. That is what happens in major sporting events the world over. There are a number of sporting events across the United Kingdom where that already works well. There is a very good system at Lord’s for test match tickets, and Wimbledon has a smart system in which people hand in their tickets as they go out and they are simply recycled. LOCOG is absolutely clear that there has to be an efficient, easy and simple mechanism for exchanging tickets legitimately in order to discourage touting.
	Turning to the business before the House, the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 sets the legal framework.

Andrew Love: I want to raise this issue before the Minister moves on to the terms of the Bill. It relates to the Olympic legacy, and in particular to the main stadium. The Minister has received a letter from Tottenham Hotspur football club regarding the arrangements for the decision relating to West Ham United. I wonder if he can say whether he has responded to that letter, and what he believes to be the latest position regarding the stadium.

Hugh Robertson: I have to tread a little carefully in answering that question because we are under threat of judicial review and the lawyers on all sides will be watching what I say carefully. [ Laughter. ] I hear knowing chuckles from former Ministers on the Labour Benches. I am confident that the process we followed was absolutely in line with what was expected, and that the process followed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company under Baroness Ford was correct. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have received what is technically called a pre-application letter from Tottenham Hotspur, and
	indeed one from Leyton Orient. We have responded to the letters within the terms advised by the lawyers and we wait to see what happens next. I am entirely confident that the correct process was followed.

Andrew Love: I thank the Minister for that reply. Tottenham Hotspur has raised concerns about transparency in relation to these matters, and about the procedure that was used. Does he believe that he has satisfied those concerns, and has he made public the issues that Tottenham Hotspur was concerned about?

Hugh Robertson: I have not made those concerns public, and that is, rightly, a matter for Tottenham Hotspur. I am confident that the process followed by the Olympic Park Legacy Company was robust, correct and inside the law. As I said, we have responded to the letters and wait to see what happens next. At this point it is difficult, and very possibly dangerous, to say a great deal more. Suffice it to say that if we can get to a stage where the legal threat is lifted, I and everybody else in the process will do all that we can to help Tottenham Hotspur find a new ground.

Bob Stewart: Is there an allocation of tickets for disabled ex-servicemen and women, perhaps through the Royal British Legion? If not, is that a possibility?

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend raises an extremely good point, which I will answer peripherally before coming on to the main question. He knows that, like him, I spent a bit of time in the armed services. I am sure that everybody in the House wants to ensure that injured servicemen in particular are properly looked after in this process. We have concluded an agreement that the armed forces will conduct the flag raising at the medal ceremonies, so they will be very much at the centre of the games. The organising committee has also agreed to take on a number of injured servicemen for work experience. We are trying to set up a similar agreement within the Government Olympic Executive. If I remember rightly, although this happened some months back, there was an allocation of tickets through one of the service charities—I think it was Help for Heroes.
	Most encouragingly, through the Battle Back programme, a number of servicemen—although not yet servicewomen, but I hope that that will change—have got on to the Paralympic training programmes run by a number of sports as part of their rehabilitation. A couple of months ago, I met two young men in Manchester—one of whom was injured in Iraq and one of whom was injured in Afghanistan—who are training with British Cycling for the Paralympic team. That was impressive and incredibly inspiring, because instead of dwelling on the unfortunate nature of what had happened, they had found a way to move forward through sport. I took Lord Coe to Headley Court last summer, where we found a young Scots Guardsman who had had both his legs and his left arm blown off, and who was hoping to compete in the Paralympics as a javelin thrower. Lord Coe, who despite being a runner knows a bit about javelin throwing, was able to take him through it. I think that he is now about seventh in the world. There is every expectation that as
	he gets fitter and better, he will have the opportunity to compete in the Paralympics. I am sure that Members from across the House wish all people in that position well.
	The 2006 Act sets the legal framework within which organisations such as LOCOG, the Olympic Delivery Authority and the Mayor’s office are empowered to deliver the games. It also provides the legislative means through which we will meet Government commitments given to the International Olympic Committee on how the games and the games environment will be managed. The Act includes powers to regulate advertising and trading in the vicinity of Olympic and Paralympic venues, and to manage traffic on the Olympic route network and around games venues. It also makes the touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets an offence.
	As we move into the operational phase of preparations, building on the excellent work of LOCOG, the ODA, the Government Olympic Executive and others, the Bill brings forward amendments to ensure that the original intention of the legislation can be effectively delivered in practice. This is entirely normal as the delivery of an Olympic games moves through its cycle, and the amendments are small in comparison to those made before previous games. The Bill is limited in scope: it is confined simply to amending sections of the original Act and contains no new issues.

Mark Field: Although I accept, as the Minister says, that the Bill makes minor amendments to the legislation that came in some five years ago, does he share the concern that has been expressed by some constituents, with which I have sympathy, that because of the nature of the agreement with the International Olympic Committee, we risk having almost a state within a state in the vicinity of the Olympic park during August 2012? There will be rights of seizure of infringing articles, essentially to protect the interests of the sponsors who, I accept, have put significant amounts of money into the games. Does he share the concerns about the undermining of fundamental liberties that we all take for granted because of the agreement with the IOC to stage the Olympics here in the UK?

Hugh Robertson: I think the best way of answering that is to say that I note the concerns. There is a fine line, and we knew what we were getting into when we bid for the event in 2004. All of us who supported the bid recognised that there would be one or two uncomfortable moments over matters such as that, but believed that it was worth having those uncomfortable moments for the greater good that would be generated.
	We will be the only city in the modern Olympic cycle that has hosted the games three times—we did so in 1908 and 1948, in case Members get caught out at the pub sports quiz. The Olympics will be a fantastic opportunity to showcase this country in a way that almost nothing else can provide. I touch wood as I say this, but there is every chance that they will be a fantastic shop window for this country—not only for our ability to deliver major construction projects but for how we host people, for our tourism industry, for businesses and for sport in this country.
	We need only look at the number of sports events that are coming to this country in the wake of London 2012 to realise that the good of hosting the Olympics is
	incalculable. That is even before we consider the fact that the Olympic park site was the largest industrial wasteland anywhere inside the M25 and it now has a brand-new Westfield shopping development springing up on its doorstep, the largest shopping centre built anywhere in Europe and the only one in which Westfield is investing outside the Australian sub-continent. We can also consider the traffic and transport changes. The price is that when we are staging a world event of such a nature, we have to have restrictions to preserve the £700 million that sponsors have put in. I absolutely acknowledge that that is a little bit uncomfortable, but I think it is a price worth paying for the greater good.

Mark Field: I accept that the 1908 and 1948 Olympics were nothing like as commercialised as next year’s will be. Such commercialism probably goes back to the Olympiads in 1984 in Los Angeles and 1996 in Atlanta. There is a sense that there has been creeping power in the hands of large commercial interests, with ever more draconian measures being put in place. For example, particular brands of soft drink will be barred within a particular radius. Has that always been the case in the modern Olympic era since there has been more commercialisation, or have commercial interests used an increasing amount of strength to ensure that we have the draconian measures that we will debate today?

Hugh Robertson: There is no sense at all that the requirements of the London Olympics are any more draconian than has been the case in immediately preceding games. The starting point for that train of events was the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, which were an advertising free-for-all. One sponsor paid a huge amount to the organising committee to be a tier 1 sponsor, or whatever the equivalent of that was, and then its immediate commercial competitor took one of the teams out for a press conference and emblazoned it with the company’s logos. Those Olympics, with all the ambush marketing around them, led to some of the regulations that now exist.
	I am personally very comfortable with the regulations, because the great success of the London Olympics has been in raising more than £700 million from commercial sponsors. That is a remarkable effort in the teeth of the type of recession that we are hopefully just coming out of. To get that amount of money from big multinationals, we have to give them some confidence that their brand is being protected. That is why they have invested the money.
	Such regulations are not a particularly Olympic phenomenon. Exactly the same things happen at almost every other major sports event, including a host of events that we are trying to attract to this country. They happen at cricket world cups, and I am pretty sure that they happen even at highly commercial events such as the Indian premier league. Exactly the same regulations apply at football World cups. They are standard, and they are in place to protect the vast amounts of sponsorship income for such events.

Gavin Barwell: In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), the Minister referred to the ability that the games give us to showcase British success stories. He mentioned in particular the remarkable
	achievements of the construction projects, particularly on the Olympic park site. Does he agree that it is a shame that visitors to that site will not be able to see the names of the British companies that have constructed the venues and done such a fantastic job? The regulations prevent advertising of the companies that have completed the venues.

Hugh Robertson: That is an interesting one. I think it is pretty much a fact of public record who has built the various stadiums. The construction company responsible for the Olympic stadium, for example, has done a fantastic job, as anyone who has been down there will say. I would be very surprised if that company thought it was getting squeezed out of the action, because everybody will know who it is. There may well be a stone somewhere or other that records who built the thing—I do not know—but my hon. Friend is right that the company cannot emblazon the outside of the stadium with advertising logos. If it had wanted to do that, it could have applied to be a tier 1 sponsor, and it has not done so. I guess that is because it thinks the building speaks for itself, and having watched it appear from start to finish, I have to say that it does.
	Any more takers for interventions? Then I will get back to the 2006 Act and the Bill. This amendment Bill addresses three main matters: advertising and trading, ticket touting and the enforcement of traffic management regulations. Regulating advertising and trading near Olympic and Paralympic games venues is a requirement of hosting the games in the host nation contract. Parliament recognised during the passage of the 2006 Act that tailored provision was needed for the games, both to act as a stronger deterrent to ambush marketing and illegal trading and because existing powers alone were not adequate for such a major event.
	The 2006 Act set out the broad framework for regulations that would provide the details. We need those regulations not only to fulfil the guarantees given to the IOC as part of the bid but to protect public space, so that spectators can access venues and we can maintain a celebratory atmosphere around the games. Following the ODA’s general notice about the regulations in June 2009 under the previous Administration, my Department launched a consultation on the proposed draft regulations on 7 March. The regulations will be reconsidered in light of the responses to the consultation before being laid in Parliament in draft and subject to the affirmative procedure later this year.
	However, the 2006 Act provides the ODA and the police with powers to enforce the regulations, including the power to seize articles that are used to contravene them. We want to amend the Act to provide that any article seized by either ODA enforcement officers or the police is dealt with by the ODA instead of the police. The effect of that change will be that during the games, police time will not be spent filing and dealing with seized property. I hope that everybody can see the sense of that—the police will have better things to do. Instead, officers designated by the ODA, who are likely to be enforcement officers from local authorities who are familiar with dealing with street trading and advertising offences under existing law, will deal with breaches of advertising and trading regulations and handle any articles that are seized. Protection, and I hope a sense of proportionality, will be assured by the fact that the
	ODA is a statutory corporation established by the 2006 Act and, crucially, is subject to the direction of the Secretary of State.

Bob Blackman: Can my hon. Friend tell the House the extent to which the ODA will have control? Olympic venues are not confined to east London. They cover the whole of London, and Olympic football events will be held all over the country and the sailing will be down in Weymouth. Where will the ODA limits apply, and what will happen to people who cross those boundaries?

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend asks a very good question. The key thing in dealing with people in that respect is applying a sense of proportionality. The regulations are designed to address big, corporate ambush marketing stunts, not individuals who through some error, act of omission or forgetfulness, or otherwise through no fault of their own, take the wrong thing into a venue. They will simply be asked to hand that over, as is normal.
	Any venue that is an Olympic venue will be affected—effectively, there is a curtain around every venue, meaning not just the park, but anywhere that an Olympic event takes place. All football stadiums used for the football competition are covered. Outside London, the venues for sailing at Weymouth, for rowing at Eton Dorney, and for white water rafting at Broxbourne, and the mountain biking venue, are covered. If that is a pub quiz question, I think I have got the lot.

Kevan Jones: The Minister says that local authorities will have an enforcement role. Has he estimated what additional costs they will incur in enforcing the regulations?

Hugh Robertson: I apologise if I did not make that clear. The enforcement officers will, if possible, be drawn from local authorities precisely because those people have the expertise. We are in the process of working out the full costs of that as part of the consultation.

Kevan Jones: Local authorities are having their budgets slashed by this Government. Will the Minister therefore make the argument for additional money to be given to the affected authorities because of the additional costs that they will incur in implementing this measure?

Hugh Robertson: Provision has been made in the budget for extra support to be given to local authorities for a variety of services—the Mayor has control of that budget and the local authorities affected are happy with the settlement, which may surprise the hon. Gentleman. There is contingency funding precisely for any large bills. If a case is made, and if we think there is real hardship, we could look at using that.

Kevan Jones: The Minister says that the Mayor controls the budget for London, but also referred to authorities outside the London metropolitan area. How will they access additional funding if they incur additional costs in implementing the regulations?

Hugh Robertson: There is a distinction between the costs that the hon. Gentleman originally asked about—the costs for enforcement officers—and more general costs. Some of those general costs are covered by the extra funding made available, but others are not, precisely because local authorities knew what they were getting themselves into when they made bids for those events. They knew what the likely cost would be at the bidding stage. It would be ridiculous for anyone who made a bid, for example, for the Olympic sailing event, to say that they did not know that there would be some associated security costs.

Mark Field: Will the Minister clarify the situation in respect of powers of seizure over individuals, rather than powers to deal with corporations? Essentially, is the ODA stepping into the shoes of local authority enforcement departments, or will it use powers other than those that would be exercised by a local council officer?

Hugh Robertson: The answer to that is, “Not quite.” The powers would normally be exercised by the police. Obviously, because of the considerable security obligations on the police at the time of the games, which my hon. Friend will understand, we have decided in the Bill to pass responsibility for enforcement officers to the ODA. The ODA will use only trained people who understand what they are doing and who will act proportionately. The suggestion is that those people are most likely to come from local authorities, which have such enforcement officers anyway. They have the necessary expertise and—I hope—sense of proportionality to carry out those functions satisfactorily.

Mike Freer: The Minister spoke of the ODA being the enforcing authority in respect of ambush marketing, but then spoke of the venues. However, the ODA controls the venues, so it would not need the power to enforce. There is therefore an inherent exclusion zone around the venues. How big is the exclusion zone in which the ODA protects against ambush marketing?

Hugh Robertson: If I understand my hon. Friend correctly—he can ask again if I do not answer him—the venues are not controlled by the ODA. The ODA hands the venues over to the London organising committee as part of the preamble to the games. At the time of the games, there is a clean area around each of the venues, for all the reasons we have discussed. If there are any contraventions of the advertising regulations in those clean areas, the enforcement officers come into play.

Mike Freer: To clarify, is it true that there will be no further enforcement outside those clean areas?

Hugh Robertson: Correct—yes.
	Infringing articles seized will be dealt with in accordance with clause 1, which sets out rules on how long articles can be held, when they must be returned, and conditions that must be met before they may be disposed of. Clause 2 will introduce a quicker procedure for making any amending advertising and trading regulations. The first and hopefully final set are out for consultation now.
	Finally, the 2006 Act does not give us the ability to amend the regulations quickly once they have been made, but requires the ODA to give lengthy notice of any regulations at specified times before they come into effect, and provides that they must be laid in draft and approved by Parliament before being made. Effectively, that means that we are unable to alter the regulations in exceptional circumstances, for example if a games venue or road event changes at the last minute for security or other reasons. To resolve that, we propose to change the procedure used for any amending regulations under the 2006 Act to the faster, negative resolution procedure. The procedure for the principal regulations will remain as it is now.
	On ticket touting, the games will be the largest sporting event this country has ever staged, with around 11 million tickets on sale. Unfortunately, ticket touts may seek to exploit the opportunities that that presents to profit at the expense of genuine sports fans. That is why the 2006 Act made the touting of games tickets, by which I mean selling or offering to sell tickets in public or in the course of business other than with LOCOG consent, an offence that attracts a maximum fine of £5,000.
	The Bill contains a provision that will increase the maximum penalty for touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets from a fine of £5,000 to a fine of £20,000. That increase is driven by the support of the Metropolitan police as a way of providing a more effective deterrent to the touting of Olympic and Paralympic tickets. In effect, it means that the police have recognised the threat of organised crime, rather than individual ticket touts, to the London Olympics. In doing that, we are not criminalising any new conduct; we are simply increasing the maximum penalty available to the courts in response to the obvious threat that touting poses to the games and to the UK’s reputation.
	Visitors will come to the Olympics and Paralympics from all over the world, and we want to encourage them to do so. We would not want their visit, or their memories of the experience, tarnished by being confronted by strings of ticket touts, as has happened at some previous games. We intend to make the disincentive very strong and want to send a clear signal to touts that their activities will not be tolerated.
	I should emphasise that this measure is aimed squarely at touts. Nothing in the law at present, or as a result of this change, prevents those who have games tickets from selling them at face value to family and friends. LOCOG will also run an official ticket exchange—this answers a point that was made earlier—so that people who find that they can no longer use tickets that they have bought legitimately can dispose of them.
	Therefore, the law-abiding public have absolutely nothing to fear from this measure. The people who will—I hope—think twice are people and organised gangs who might be tempted to engage in touting and whose threat has been identified by the police. They should get the very clear message that the Government and the police take this matter seriously, and that the financial penalties for this conduct are severe, and indeed sufficiently severe to disincentivise them.

Bob Blackman: This is a key issue for the large numbers of people who have purchased tickets in the proper way. During my search for tickets—I hope I am successful in the ballot—I noted that a large number of
	unofficial websites are attempting to market tickets in advance of anyone receiving them. Clearly, they will seek tickets from those who are successful in the ballot. What action can be taken against those organisations and companies and to get those sites removed from the web?

Hugh Robertson: Two things come to mind. During my time as a Minister, I have become aware that some of these sites encourage people to subscribe even though they do not have any tickets at all and the whole thing is a blatant con trick. I recall the tragic case of some New Zealanders who came over for a rugby match at Cardiff Arms park on the basis of a set of tickets from one such website. It was a complete sham, but they had travelled all the way over here and gone to pick up their tickets, only to find there was nothing there. The point about the Bill is that it will enable us to take more effective action. A disincentive of £20,000 to someone perpetrating large-scale commercial ticketing fraud is likely to be much more effective than a disincentive of £5,000.

Don Foster: Will the Minister join me in praising those in the police who are involved in Operation Podium and who managed to close down more than 100 websites even before the start of this year?

Hugh Robertson: I absolutely agree, and I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. As he says, Operation Podium has already started and it will continue as we get closer to the games.

Simon Hughes: I apologise for missing the beginning of the Minister’s speech, but this is the issue on which I want to ask a question. Can I assume that when the allocation of tickets by ballot is made—and I am one of many hoping to be lucky—the data on who has been allocated tickets, especially large numbers of tickets, will not be made publicly accessible, in order to prevent the abuses that he and others have mentioned? There is a chance that—as with the telephone hacking—people could obtain that information and start illegally reselling tickets. Some assurance about the security of the process would be helpful.

Hugh Robertson: I can absolutely give my right hon. Friend those assurances. The firm conducting the ticketing operation was selected precisely because it was able to give those assurances. Nobody wants any breach of security, and the ticketing process has several features—although I do not want to go into details—that will make it extremely difficult for people to operate in that fashion.

Andrew Love: May I press the Minister on the illegal use of the internet? Although some sites may have been closed down, I expect that 10 times as many opened up the next day. What specific measures have been taken and what publicity is planned to ensure that what happened to the New Zealanders does not happen to other people coming to this country?

Hugh Robertson: The short answer is that that is what the Bill is intended to do. The advice from the police is that there is a threat that organised gangs will target the London Olympics precisely because they will be such a prestigious global event. It is that threat that warrants
	the increase in the fine from £5,000 to £20,000. That threat has been identified in a way that was not apparent when the original Act was passed, and the advice is that a much meatier fine is required to address it.
	A key issue for the games is the effective movement of the games family to and from venues. Before Members seek to intervene, I should point out that that does not mean the IOC; it means the athletes and the officials who need to get to the events. At the risk of going back to the pub quiz, the Atlanta games in 1996 had a significant problem with athletes and officials being able to get to events on time. We can imagine the frustration of any young man or woman who has trained for some 20 years to reach this seminal athletic moment, but cannot get there in time because of a traffic jam because the host city cannot shift people around the city to order. The 2006 Act allowed for the creation and enforcement of traffic management measures specifically for the games to enable their smooth running and to deliver journey time commitments made to the IOC on the movement of athletes and other games family members.
	These included powers to create an Olympic route network, and I am grateful for the work done by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) when he was a Minister to enable the ODA and local traffic authorities to make traffic regulation orders for defined Olympics purposes, and for the ODA to set levels of penalty charges, in accordance with guidelines and subject to consultation and approval. The Act also relaxed, for London Olympic events, the restrictions on the making of special event traffic orders.

Christopher Chope: The A31, which is the main route to the Weymouth venue, has a bottleneck at the Canford Bottom roundabout. The Highways Agency proposes to replace the roundabout with what is described as a hamburger junction. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that work is not time-sensitive to the Olympics, given the powers to which he has referred? At the moment, the Highways Agency proposes to go ahead without proper consultation on this sensitive issue which could waste a lot of taxpayers’ money.

Hugh Robertson: After some six years with this brief, I thought that I had come across almost everything, but the Canford Bottom roundabout and the hamburger junction are new to me. I would be interested to learn whether the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood is an expert on either of those issues. The best thing would be for my hon. Friend to write to me and, with the Department for Transport, I will try to provide him with an answer.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps before the end of the debate the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who is in her place, would be able to respond. It is a live issue and I know that my constituents would be interested to hear the answer today.

Hugh Robertson: With all due respect, my hon. Friend has been in Parliament long enough to know that other Ministers cannot jump into debates and I will stick by the commitment I have just made. Everybody knows
	that the traffic issues in and around Weymouth are testing, to put it mildly, and if my hon. Friend writes to me, I will make sure that he gets an answer.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps I could have one more go—

Hugh Robertson: My hon. Friend can have another go, but he will not get a different answer.

Christopher Chope: On the wider issue of the route network, games officials and competitors will not need to travel 24 hours a day. Will my hon. Friend assure me that traffic restrictions will apply only when they are travelling?

Hugh Robertson: Yes. There will not be a blanket restriction in force throughout the games. It will only be in force when required for the purposes of the games.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I thank the Minister for his kind words. When we launched the Olympic network consultation some years ago, there was general acceptance by the public—apart from an outcry in the Evening Standard, which was quickly contained—that athletes and officials need to be assured that they can be where they need to be. The only concern was the potential for abuse by those who think that they are more important than they are. Can the Minister reassure us that only those who are entitled to priority through traffic management will get it?

Hugh Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for the initial work he did on this issue. I can give him that absolute assurance. In the early days of the Committee on the original Bill there was a lot of talk about Zil lanes for plutocrats and other such things. The message has now got through that this is a necessary measure to ensure that we can deliver athletes and officials to events on time so that they can take part in the games. I am about to come to the necessary enforcement measures, which were due to be in traffic legislation that never made it on to the statute book. We thought that this would happen in 2006, but it did not and it is now being tightened up as part of this Bill.
	As with the Bill’s other provisions, since 2006 further detailed planning has been undertaken and further information has become available, leading to a number of technical amendments that are needed to ensure that the intentions of the 2006 Act can be properly implemented. The first of these, in clause 4, will expand the power conferred on the ODA and traffic authorities by the 2006 Act to make temporary traffic regulation orders at short notice for Olympic purposes, as set out in the 2006 Act, by removing the usual requirement to make such orders for immediate changes to traffic, especially for Olympic purposes. On the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, clause 5 will allow for civil enforcement in relation to contraventions of those notices, and will clarify the provisions allowing the ODA to set the levels of charges, including penalty charges, for the enforcement of orders made for Olympic purposes both within Greater London and outside.

Gavin Barwell: Can my hon. Friend give the House an idea of the level of those penalty charge notices? Has the ODA reached a view on that?

Hugh Robertson: No final decision has been taken, but I can assure my hon. Friend—if this is what is worrying him—that it will be proportionate. There is quite a large ceiling in the 2006 Act. It is fair to say that this point caused us some concern back in 2006 on a cross-party basis. The application of charges will be proportionate. I think that this clause was called the granny clause, because nobody wants a little old lady straying briefly into one of these lanes by mistake and then getting hammered by an enormous fine.

Bob Blackman: One of the principal concerns of residents in my constituency is that the whole of Harrow and Brent could be turned into a very large car park for the duration of the games, with people coming from outside London, from the north and north-west, parking their cars and getting on the Jubilee line to Stratford. What regulations is the Minister proposing to allow the local councils to implement appropriate parking controls to prevent that from happening?

Hugh Robertson: No such provisions are proposed in the Bill. I could see that being quite a controversial power to grant. It is a matter for the local authority, and if it thinks that there is such a threat, it should take action. However, I hope that I can put my hon. Friend’s mind at ease by saying simply that the central tenet of the transport ban is that these are public transport games, and that the connectivity to the Olympics site is now fantastic, either via the Javelin train at King’s Cross—the area most likely to see the problem he mentioned—or through the upgrades to the tube lines. As I said, however, we suspect that the vast majority of visitors from outside London will probably come in to King’s Cross St Pancras and transfer on to the Javelin train. One can get to Stratford in seven minutes from there. I thus hope that the availability of public transport, and the ticketing system itself, will ensure that that problem does not occur.

Bob Blackman: If my hon. Friend came to Stanmore and Queensbury when Wembley station was in operation, he would find that all the residential streets are jam-packed—people come off the M1, park as soon as they can, and get on the Jubilee line to go to the stadium. The suspicion is that that is precisely what will happen for the duration of the games. At the moment, the local authority in Harrow has failed to take any action, and I am concerned about whether the Bill gives any special powers to enable the local authority to act for the duration of the games, rather than having to impose draconian measures for longer .

Hugh Robertson: There is no such measure in the Bill. I would need to take the advice of the drafting clerks, but my hon. Friend is putting before me a general problem that arises when there are large-scale sporting events. I am not sure, therefore, that it would not fall outside the scope of a Bill that is purely for the Olympics. All we could do with the Bill—and I am not even sure we could—would be to provide measures for the period of the Olympics and Paralympic games afterwards. What he raises sounds like a more general problem driven by sporting events at Wembley stadium and elsewhere. If the problem is worrying local residents—I presume he would not have raised the matter otherwise—it is for the local authority to take action.

Mike Freer: On the general point about the extent of the Olympic route network, especially the alternative network, which includes the north circular in my constituency, can the Minister confirm what traffic impact studies have been undertaken? Obviously, a commitment has been given to suspend all roadworks on the network, but what about in the neighbouring areas? If there is a problem and traffic is diverted, we need to ensure that the surrounding streets can cope with that diverted traffic, so we need measures to ensure that all roadworks in the area are suspended.

Hugh Robertson: I can confirm that part of the commitment on the Olympic route network is that there will be no roadworks on that network. It would be slightly self-defeating otherwise. However, the Mayor, with whom we have discussed the matter at great length—we also discussed it with his predecessor—is aware that London’s reputation hinges on keeping the city moving during this very busy period, when the eyes of the world will be upon us. Everybody involved knows that a logjam would have serious national implications, so roadworks will be suspended on the ORN and, I hope, in the areas around it.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I seek some reassurance. While we are on the question of reputations and the Jubilee line, will the Minister have a quick word with his former hon. Friend the Mayor of London and ask him to get a grip? The Jubilee line’s reputation at the moment will be a huge disincentive for anybody thinking about using it to get to Stratford. It is a really important artery, but its reputation is suffering more and more each week.

Hugh Robertson: I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I know that the Mayor has for obvious reasons made the smooth running of the Jubilee line during the Olympics one of his top priorities. We are aware of the need to ensure that it runs efficiently.
	Clause 7 makes the necessary provision for civil enforcement in relation to moving-traffic contraventions—for example, banned U-turns and no-entry routes—in Greater London, including the procedure for setting penalty charge levels for such contraventions. This provision is needed because the 2006 Act was drafted on the assumption that the moving-traffic parts of the Traffic Management Act 2004, to which the 2006 Act refers, would be implemented in time for the games. That has not happened, however, so we have introduced the clause to fill the gap.
	Clause 8 makes the necessary provision for civil enforcement in relation to moving-traffic contraventions outside Greater London on bus lanes, the definition of which will include “games lanes” on the ORN. Again, this includes the procedure for setting penalty charge levels for such contraventions. As with clause 7, this provision is needed to fill the gap that would otherwise be left by the non-implementation of the moving-traffic parts of the 2004 Act. Finally, clause 6 addresses the current limitations on the special event powers in section 16A of the Road Traffic Regulation (Special Events) Act 1984. Although all these were relaxed to some extent by the 2006 Act to allow for road closures for London Olympic events, this clause further relaxes them to enable other types of restrictions to be imposed by an order under section 16A of the 1984 Act, such as
	parking controls or one-way streets. Clause 6 also allows for civil enforcement in relation to the contravention of such orders. There will be events during the games where the special event powers are usually used, such as for the marathon, and using familiar powers will make the process run more smoothly. That is important.
	In conclusion, I began by saying that the enormous progress made in preparing for the Olympic and Paralympic games is a cause for national celebration.

Richard Ottaway: I apologise for intervening during the Minister’s conclusion, but I wanted to catch him before he sat down. Will he say something about the public disagreement over funding between the British Olympic Association and LOCOG? I suspect he hoped that this would not come up, but it was a surprise to many of us that it had not been resolved. If there is surplus money to made out of the games, why is it not going back to the taxpayers, in particular the council tax payers of London who are paying more than the rest of the country?

Hugh Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I nearly got through, didn’t I? I am glad to say that the dispute between the British Olympic Association and LOCOG, which was covered extensively in the media, has now been resolved. If there is any profit from the games, it will be divided by a formula that is set out in the host nation contract, which means that 20% goes to the International Olympic Committee, 20% goes to the national Olympics committee—in our case the BOA—and 60% is invested in community sport.
	I started doing this job in opposition in 2004, and it is fair to say that in nearly six years on the beat I have not seen a single budget forecast for the games that produces an outrun profit. Without revealing too much of the inner workings of the Olympics budget, I fear that the worry has been on the other side of the equation—that we might not be able to balance the thing. That is now not an issue; the budget is balanced and will work well. At one stage I thought that the whole dispute was a slightly arcane argument about a minor part of the contract and a profit that will most likely not exist, so I was slightly perplexed as to why it had become such a big issue. Frankly, I think that it became a big issue because there was so little else to write about, as the construction and the organisation of the games were otherwise in such good shape. I am delighted that the thing has now been resolved and that we can all concentrate on rather more sensible matters.
	As I also said at the beginning, the increasingly refined planning work that is now being carried out had identified a small number of technical issues that needed to be addressed to ensure that the legislation passed in 2006 worked as intended. It is also my intention—an intention that will be shared across this House—that the enforcement of the measures in the Bill and the 2006 Act will be sensible and proportionate. The issues that the Bill seeks to resolve are minor and technical, but they are also essential to providing the building blocks that will underpin a truly memorable games-time experience. On that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Tessa Jowell: Let me begin by saying that the Opposition are delighted to support the legislation. I thank the Minister and his officials for the opportunity to be briefed ahead of this debate. As he clearly indicated, the provisions in the Bill will allow us to discharge the obligations that we undertook when, five years ago in Singapore, we won the right to host the Olympic games. I also welcome, as he did, the extent to which we have managed to maintain the contract for cross-party support for the Olympic games. For eight of the 10 years of this project I had the privilege of being the Minister with whom the buck stopped. It is not often in government that one is dealing with a project one knows will extend beyond a general election, and which therefore must be beyond the interests of the governing parties at the time, and held in trust for the people of this country. The Olympics are one such project.
	Let me turn briefly to the provisions in the Bill, which the Minister dealt with in considerable detail. The Bill builds on the 2006 Act, which was passed by the Government of whom I was part, updating and refining that legislation in light of operational understanding based on the enormously impressive planning, modelling and further consultation that has taken place since. The Bill updates the legislation in relation to advertising and trading regulations—crucial for public confidence—increases the maximum penalty for ticket touting, and deals with the management and enforcement of the Olympic route network and the additional traffic flows that the Olympics will create. This legislation represents another piece in the overall jigsaw of a multitude of measures that have been put in place to address the complexity of the logistical planning for the event and the degree of discipline required for operational delivery.
	As we know, the Olympic park was the largest public sector building project in the whole of Europe. In its success lie many of the tests that should be applied to future developments on such a scale. However, even at this stage, before the park is finally complete, we can have growing confidence that it is a statement about the confidence and competence of UK plc. I pay tribute, as the Minister did, to the leadership of the Olympic Delivery Authority, and in particular to John Armitt and David Higgins. Their partnership needs to be remembered for many years to come, as they are the people who made these Olympic games possible. I would also like to include all the staff of the Olympic Delivery Authority, which is, quite frankly, the best public service organisation that I have ever had the privilege to work with. Every single member of staff should take credit for that. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who were my officials—they are now the Minister’s officials—in the Government Olympic Executive. They have done an outstanding and professional job in dealing with some of the difficult issues with the LOCOG budget and in maintaining both budgetary control across government and logistical consistency.
	There is still some time to go, so this is not a moment for over-congratulation on the achievement, but we can take satisfaction from the extent to which the UK Government, working with their partner agencies, have done a reasonably good job of confounding the chorus of scepticism that usually accompanies such major projects. Just to recap on progress, as the Minister said,
	this great project—the biggest and most complex construction project in Europe—is, at this point, on time and under budget. The building work across the park is almost complete. Two or three weeks ago the final piece of turf was laid in the field of play in the Olympic stadium. I will return to this point, but I believe that the final sod came from Scunthorpe—a powerful statement about how the whole of the UK has contributed to the effort in the Olympic park.
	At the end of July the Olympic Delivery Authority will hand over the stadium, the aquatic centre, the handball and basketball arenas, the international broadcasting centre and the main press centre. The white water park at Lee valley is now complete, and the work at Stratford station will also be completed. The anticipated final cost of the construction and development of the park now stands at £7.3 billion, with around £500 million of contingency available. However, another tribute to John Armitt and David Higgins is the fact that something like £780 million of savings have been made.
	I should also like to refer to the importance of sustainability in the park, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has made many speeches in the House. When I last visited the park, I realised that the wetland area looked just as it did on the PowerPoint presentations that I used to make five or six years ago. That is a measure of just how professionally this project has been realised. Trees have been planted that were indigenous to the lower Lea valley 200 years ago.
	I would also like to remind the House that once the games are over, more than 2,000 great crested newts will be repatriated from the sanctuary further up the Lea valley that they have been given during the construction process. I am not sure whether that fact will become an issue in the forthcoming mayoral contest, but there will be a post-games moment of celebration with the newts’ homecoming.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I hesitate to ask, but does my right hon. Friend think that one of the mayoral candidates is more favourably disposed towards newts than the other?

Tessa Jowell: The passion of our former hon. Friend, the former Member for Brent, East and former Mayor of London, for newts and many other great issues relating to London is well known.
	One of the disciplines that has shaped the Olympic project has been confounding what would otherwise have been inevitable. This shows the importance of the Government working with the private sector and other agencies, because it is only the Government who can turn the tide in relation to those inevitabilities. The first example is the importance of bringing benefit not only to London but to the whole of the United Kingdom. A report that I commissioned showed that, had we done nothing to diffuse the benefits around the UK, the disproportionate benefit through displacement from other parts of the country would have been in the region of £4 billion. That would not have been new growth, but displacement to London, with a net additional growth benefit to London. It was because of that that, in the early stages of letting some 1,000 contracts, members of the Olympic Delivery Authority and many of us who are here today toured the country beating the drum to raise awareness of the need to bid for Olympic projects.
	There was a considerable degree of success. To illustrate that point, the basketball arena—the largest temporary structure ever built—was constructed by a firm in Glasgow; Neath provided the steel for the aquatic centre, which will probably be the iconic symbol of our Olympic park; Bolton provided the steel for the Olympic stadium; Doncaster provided the steel cabling for the roof of the stadium; and the turf came from Scunthorpe. So 1,000 companies around the country, two thirds of them small and medium-sized businesses, won contracts to help to build the Olympic park and the Olympic village, with hundreds more involved in the supply chain.
	I shall now turn to the second “inevitability”. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is a passionate advocate of the benefits for the people who live in the five Olympic boroughs, including her own constituents in Newham. There was a great fear that the Olympics would be an oasis that had very little relation to the five boroughs, and that the opportunities provided by the games—not only the construction process and the availability of jobs, but also the legacy—would simply pass the communities of the east end by. We are still to be judged on how far we have succeeded in that regard. The risk of falling behind the expectations of local people in east London must be a continuing spur to us all to ensure that those expectations are realised.
	By the time the park is complete 30,000 people will have worked in it, 20% of whom will be residents of the six host Olympic boroughs, including Barking and Dagenham. That is well above the original target of 10% to 15%, but we must always believe that we can go further. Local people will have access to more than a third of the apprenticeships, and will be well placed to qualify for the more than 50,000 jobs that will be created in the area once the commercial development is complete. New homes will be built, and Stratford City—the UK’s largest retail centre—will be open in 2011.
	For those who are sceptical about regeneration, it is worth placing on record the fact that half the original investment in the Westfield centre has now been recovered through the part-sale of the asset by Westfield to a pension fund and other investors. That is regeneration in action. That is what east London needs, but it would not have got it if we had not won the right to host the Olympic games. The Minister talked about engaging the rest of the country. We have seen the enthusiasm for tickets, and it is important that we recruit volunteers from around the country and that the regional benefits of the games are widely enjoyed.
	We are pleased to see that the Bill’s provisions on advertising and trading during the games are pragmatic and reasonable. It is also sensible to reduce the burdens likely to fall on the police during the period, particularly given the pressures that they will have to cope with as a result of the cuts in their numbers in 2012. The provisions in the Bill are only a small part of the overall proposals on advertising and trading, many of which are being dealt with through secondary legislation and consulted on at the moment. I am confident that the Government are doing what is necessary to ensure that the regulations are appropriate, allowing the majority of businesses to continue to operate as normal and allowing freedom of movement for people coming to the games. We welcome the proposal to raise the maximum penalty for ticket touting at the Olympics from £5,000 to £20,000. The fact that tickets for the opening ceremony in Beijing
	were on sale at five times their face price provides all the persuasive evidence that we need that this provision is important.
	We will obviously seek to probe further in Committee into the application of the provisions. The key determinant of whether they will be seen as draconian and disproportionate, or appropriate for facilitating the smooth running of the games, will be the way in which they are applied in practice. When the Bill comes to Committee we might give further consideration to how the non-legislative aspect of the application of these powers can be achieved.
	We know, of course, about the controversy associated with the Olympic route network, and we have all made it clear that this is a prerequisite of becoming a host city. The choice of whether to have it is not one available to us—a point of which the people of London need constant reminding. Those people also need to be persuaded by the evidence of the reasonable way in which this will be policed.
	When the Minister winds up the debate, will he consider whether the final approval of the violation charges for abuse of the Olympic route network should lie not with the Secretary of State but with the Mayor of London, which would be more directly consistent with the Mayor’s other powers? The potential fines might be controversial across London and for Londoners, so it is right for the elected Mayor of London to have a say over the level at which the charges are set.
	In just 456 days, Britain will host the opening ceremony for the London 2012 Olympic games. Already in the Minister’s speech and in the interventions we have heard so far, representations have been made for those in our country who should enjoy special consideration. I think everybody will want to see that special consideration, whether it be to injured members of the armed forces or others, properly respected. I hope the House will also acknowledge the close anniversaries of winning the right to host the Olympic games and the terrorist bombings on London, which followed the day after our great success in Singapore. I hope there will be a place to recognise and honour the victims of 7/7 and those whose lives were changed for ever.
	In 456 days’ time, 4 billion people will turn on to watch the opening ceremony in the Olympic stadium in east London, and we will have the chance of a lifetime to demonstrate what it is about our great city of which we are so proud, as well as our competence and our capability to deliver for the people of this country and visitors from around the world the largest peacetime logistical operation. I believe that we can have every confidence in looking forward to that. Perhaps the most important way of maintaining that confidence is to maintain a degree of humility at the privilege bestowed on us and at the responsibility we have on behalf of the international Olympic movement. We should remember that, in doing this, we are helping to honour the dreams and ambitions activated by the prospect of the Olympic games for every single citizen across our country.

David Burrowes: As a London Member of Parliament, as a mad sports fan and, indeed, as an owner and friend of newts—they
	cropped up in the previous speech, and they are not a monopoly interest of the previous Mayor—I am delighted to take part in this Second Reading debate. In acknowledging the commitment of previous Ministers in bringing the Olympics to London, I would particularly like to pay tribute to the present Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who told us in his opening speech of being six years on the beat. He is certainly a reassuring presence as he helps to guide us through the preparations for the Olympics.
	Earlier this week, I got into the mood and experienced the emotions associated with the Olympics. I experienced frustration, anxiety, disappointment and then a final adrenalin push as I wanted to get to the end of the line before time ran out. Obviously, I am referring to applying for my tickets to attend the Olympics. We shall get a taste of national celebration tomorrow with the royal wedding, and we look forward to the Olympics when we will again have the opportunity to raise this country’s flag and be proud of what we can produce.
	Next year’s Olympics and Paralympics will provide a great opportunity for the people of London and of this country to celebrate sportsmanship and sporting excellence—sportsmanship of which, sadly, we saw too little evidence in last night's champions league semi-final. The dedication and focus of athletes from across the world will set a fantastic example to young people. The investment that this Government and the previous Government have put into new facilities across the country will revive interest in fitness and games at every ability level and inspire the next generation of sportsmen and women, as well as promote a generation of more physically active people. In my neighbouring constituency of Broxbourne, the Lee Valley white water rafting centre is already open to the public, in advance of what will prove to be an excellent facility for canoeing and kayaking.
	Furthermore, 2012 will provide an opportunity to celebrate Britain, our culture and our values. As we welcome thousands of visitors to London, we have an opportunity to showcase what it means to be a free country, which can ensure that an event of great size runs smoothly, successfully and enjoyably—without resorting to overbearing methods or controls. The world is watching, British taxpayers are watching and London council tax payers are certainly watching, and we must make certain that all those who support the Olympics can be proud not only of the performance of team GB, but of the manner in which the games are held and our infrastructure copes.
	There are real challenges to achieving that. Some will seek to sell tickets illegally, as has already been mentioned, or fob people off with fakes, thereby cheating fans and supporters out of their money and tarring the spirit of the games. Some may try to advertise around Olympic grounds and spaces in a way that unfairly and misleadingly associates their products with the games, tricking those who view them into thinking that the companies or individuals involved are sponsoring or are officially endorsed by athletes or the Olympic games. We saw an example of that at the recent World cup, when orange-clad women were advertising the beverage that they wanted to push. Such ambush advertising is unfair not only on consumers, but on those who have donated and contributed towards the holding of the events that we will be able to experience and enjoy next year. We can look at the criticism of monopoly branding,
	but we should recognise the immense financial impact of the games—as the Minister said, £700 million is no mean amount of money, which has helped to reduce the burden on taxpayers.
	Those representing London constituencies—I see several of my hon. Friends in their places—will be especially aware of the need to ensure careful planning and flexible powers, so that the sheer size and scale of both the Olympics and our city do not interfere with our commitment to provide accessible sites and quick transport links to and from Olympic venues. This needs to be done proportionately, without inhibiting the free flow of normal business in and around London.
	The Bill will help to ensure that our 2012 celebrations will be unmitigated by those challenges in a way that is simple, efficient, targeted, transparent and affordable. The Bill contains simple solutions such as increasing the maximum fine for the unauthorised sale of tickets from £5,000 to £20,000—a serious deterrent to those who would take advantage of other people’s enthusiasm for the games—without creating any new offence or a complicated set of procedures. The Bill will give the responsibility for dealing with property confiscated under advertising and trading regulations to the Olympic Delivery Authority enforcement officers, allowing them to make use of powers and procedures tailored for the period covering the Olympics, removing an unnecessary burden from the shoulders of the police.
	The key principle, as has already been mentioned, is proportionality, particularly with respect to clause 1, which concerns the removal of infringing articles. As we know all too well, labels are part and parcel of the everyday lives of young people in particular, and the labels on their clothes and the bags that they carry around might technically fall into the classification of infringement. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that proportionality will be applied. I am not talking about planned and organised ambush advertising in contravention of the rules; I am talking about inadvertent advertising by people who attend the games with labels all over their bodies and the articles that they are carrying.
	When I referred to proportionality, I did not mean just that officials should not seek to prosecute such people—indeed, we would not expect them to do so—but that the games should not get off to a bad start with the confiscation of articles. For instance, a young person might be carrying the latest man bag with a label emblazoned on it. We should bear in mind that, while it may be appropriate in some respects for local authorities to carry out the task of enforcement, they are, sadly, sometimes guilty of over-zealous application of new powers.

Hugh Robertson: Obviously I explained the position very badly in my speech. Not all enforcement officers will come from local authorities. The ODA will naturally look to them when recruiting officers, because they have some expertise, but anyone who is suitably qualified can do the job. As for the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, I have been told that under the contract that will be in force, local authorities will be reimbursed for the cost of losing officials if they are selected to act as enforcement officers.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for that clarification. Certainly all available expertise should be used, but I hope that there will be proper and clear guidance so that the public are aware of the application of those powers in advance, and can be reassured that we mean it when we speak of proportionality. I am thinking particularly of the seizure of articles to prevent future contravention of the rules. We do not want people to lose their possessions through inadvertent contravention because they did not know the rules. Common sense must be applied.
	The measures in the Bill are efficient. They allow the ODA to make decisions quickly about traffic control, and enable ODA officers to respond speedily to any emergencies that require unplanned traffic control and road closures. I am sure that all Members welcome those powers, which will free up the police to focus on protecting the public and preventing serious crime. We are all aware of the extra risk of human trafficking and terrorism posed by the games.
	The measures are also properly targeted. They will facilitate flexible application and enforcement of traffic control and advertising notices in specific, well defined areas, tailoring the force of notices to the times when those areas are being used for Olympic events. The north circular road runs through my constituency, and it is renowned for being viewed at a very slow pace by people sitting in traffic jams. I am pleased that the improvements introduced by the Mayor will be in place and that the roadworks will have been sorted out in good time for the Olympics. However, the north circular has a direct impact on my constituents and people in neighbouring constituencies, and although the improvements have helped road safety, it has been acknowledged that they will do little to deal with current congestion, let alone the additional impact of the Olympics. It is important for the traffic management orders to be dealt with proportionately and carefully to minimise the impact on my constituents and others in the area.
	Crucially, the Bill will make the procedures surrounding the Olympics more transparent. The rules governing the way in which seized property will be treated, and how and when it will be returned or disposed of, are set out in detail in new sections 31A to 31E. I welcome that transparency, but I feel it should be taken further. Guidance should make clear to those who may consider advertising, trading or using their vehicles in a way that ignores the Olympic notices what penalties they can expect and how their cases will be treated.
	At a time where we are making necessary cuts in expenditure to revive our economy and make it secure, the House should note that the amendments in the Bill are affordable. The ODA has estimated that it will incur only an additional £22,000 in costs by taking responsibility for confiscated property, a move that will save the police considerably more money. The loss of business revenue expected from the provision of amended advertising regulations along the games road race route is expected to be no more than £15,400, which is a small price to pay for the maintaining and enhancement of the integrity and success of our Olympic and Paralympic games.
	This is a common-sense Bill which responds practically to the challenges that accompany the privilege of hosting the games. It does small things to ensure that the big and positive effects of the games—economic, social and sporting—are unhindered. It will, I believe, protect the
	interests of the many people who want to enjoy the games without losing time and money to those who seek to take advantage of what will rightly be a national celebration, surpassing even tomorrow’s national celebration to become the greatest show on earth.

Lyn Brown: This is not my first speech on the Olympics. I remember being in the House on the day that London won the Olympic bid, and describing my pride in the fact that it had been chosen and my excitement at being the Member of Parliament representing the area where the Olympic park would be based. Just in case any Government Members imagine that the Olympic park is an MP-free zone, let me state emphatically that it is not.
	I am not sure whether any Members who are in the Chamber today have visited the Olympic site, but I agree entirely with what the Minister said earlier: the progress that has been made in turning what was effectively an industrial wasteland unto a beautiful park has been amazing. I am not the type of woman to wax lyrical about beautiful buildings, but I must say that I have become quite misty-eyed when looking at the buildings that we have managed to produce in the Olympic park. If Members have not been there, I urge them to go. It really is rather beautiful.
	Before I deal with the provisions in the Bill, let me, as the local Member of Parliament, put the debate in context by speaking of the communities who will be most affected by the games, and who were promised when we placed the bid that they would benefit from them. I will not go into a long and detailed explanation or a statistical analysis of the poverty in London—a London which, despite City bonuses and high incomes, is also a place of real economic deprivation and hardship—but we should bear it in mind that the Olympic park is sited in the fourth poorest part of London, next door to Hackney and Tower Hamlets, which are respectively the poorest and second poorest parts.
	The bid for the games was predicated on the leaving of an important legacy for my constituents and those of my hon. Friends representing east and south-east London constituencies. The bid document stated:
	“By staging the Games in this part of the city, the most enduring legacy of the Olympics will be the regeneration of an entire community for the direct benefit of everyone who lives there.”
	The ambition of the bid was big, but I did not and still do not believe that it is unachievable. The games present us with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real and positive difference to an entire community in what is arguably the poorest area in the country. It is for that reason that the Olympic and Paralympic games must not be simply a fabulous sporting and cultural spectacle for a few weeks in the summer of 2012. They must become a mechanism for leaving lasting improvements in the health, housing, employment and skills of Londoners. To spend that much money and not achieve a lasting and positive legacy would be obscene. In years to come, the success of the 2012 games will be judged in two ways. It will be judged by the people’s experiences of the games during the fortnight—the warmth of our welcome, the quality of the competition, the slickness of our
	organisation, and the sheer excitement of the moment as we cheer our Olympic hopefuls to victory. Most importantly however, especially in the east of London, the games will be judged by what they leave behind—by whether or not they have managed to kick-start a sustained regeneration and renewal of that part of the poorest area of the country. The test applied by local people will be how many new homes and jobs have been created, and how much prosperity has been generated.
	We made some big promises on those matters to the International Olympic Committee; indeed, many say the ambitious vision we offered for the future was what led to our winning the bid. We made equally big promises to the people of east London about what it would be like to host the Olympics and what the long-term benefits would be, and we now need to make sure we fulfil those commitments.
	The people of the east end, including the people of my constituency, talk to me about how excited they still are at the prospect of the games coming—and they are excited. Young children have been engaged rather well in the process of putting on the games. Children at schools in my constituency have come along to watch the building process as it happens, and they feel part of it. That excitement is still with the local people I represent—and, fortunately, local polling evidence supports that too. I must tell the Minister, however, that there is still a slight feeling of unease in the constituency. People are becoming worried that the games might steamroller them, instead of helping to advance their interests, and they wonder if the promises we made for the future will actually be realised, and whether the benefits will remain after the Olympic torch has moved on. That is the context in which we are discussing the Bill.
	I note the Minister’s assurance that the Bill does not make any significant policy changes, and that it is designed to deliver the intentions behind the original legislation. In the main, that is a good thing, although I admit to having been a somewhat critical friend of the former Government as we created the framework to deliver the games and its legacy. I am also pleased to note that the consultation on the Bill runs until 30 May, and I look forward to considering the results. However, I am sure Members will agree that the sensitivity and intelligence with which the provisions are implemented will be of greater importance than the details of the provisions themselves. It is crucial that local communities feel respected and engaged in all the planning and arrangements before the Olympics, to ensure that there is genuine access to the good things that they expect to come afterwards.
	I understand that the consultation results will be published on the 2012 website, and I hope that they are made available very soon after the close of the consultation period, alongside a plan of action, so that those who will be most affected will know what is to happen. To be honest, I do not think that a notice on the website will achieve that end. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that the fabulous local campaigning newspaper, the Newham Recorder, is involved so that it can fully inform its readership and my constituents of the results of the consultation and what actions might stem from it.
	The Bill’s provisions on advertising, trading, ticket touting and traffic management during the games period appear to be pragmatic and reasonable, and I wholeheartedly support the increase in the maximum
	fine for ticket touting from £5,000 to £20,000 and gently ask if we think that that is high enough given the potential profitability of illegal touting. If we do not think it is high enough, might we put in place an elastic higher end to cover those who might profit more than hitherto expected from such illegal activity?
	Businesses in Newham—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—have not all felt that it is easy to participate in the supply chain. They still see London 2012 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity however, and I do not want any unreasonable or poorly designed measures to undermine it for them, or to lead to their incurring additional costs. I would hate to see them embark on a course of action that they then have to change or abandon because it does not accord with the branding rules or other measures we might introduce at a later stage. As the Minister has acknowledged, the Olympic branding regulations are complex, and local businesses located in the regulatory zone that are not official outlets could have their goods seized if their activities contravene them. I understand the need for the regulations, but local traders could find themselves in trouble simply by selling Coca-Cola to thirsty visitors.

Hugh Robertson: I can immediately set the hon. Lady’s mind at rest on this point. There is a very tight exclusion zone around the venues that will absolutely not stretch into the areas in which many of her local businesses operate, so there is no chance at all of that happening. Also of course, all these regulations will be well publicised before the event. I do not think there is anything new in this set of amendments that would cause difficulty. Businesses do have to pay close attention to the provisions of the original 2006 Act, which includes a series of relevant measures under which if they were to start to advertise their business on the back of London 2012, they would almost certainly contravene regulations. Those regulations were contained in the original Act however, not in this set of amendments.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I agree that there was substantial debate on the previous regulations, but local businesses have raised issues with me to do with what brandings they can use outside the exclusion zone and whether that might contravene the rules. I understand that no official advice has yet been issued. If it has been issued, I would be grateful to be told that I am wrong, but if it has not yet been issued, I urge that it should be so and that it should be publicised in order to prevent future misunderstandings that could generate local resentment.
	Traders are also anxious to see the detail of the fair compensation that will be available to them if their businesses are adversely affected. When the Minister sums up, I would be grateful if he could give an indication of when that information might be made available. It says in the consultation that tackling unauthorised trading within the regulated zones will probably be undertaken by council staff experienced in dealing with similar enforcement issues, but the level of unlawful trading, especially in the Olympic zone, is likely to be far higher than ever experienced locally before. I understand that additional funds will be made available to provide for enforcement officers, and I hope that those officers will come from local councils. It is essential that local enforcement officers are employed in order to ensure
	that there is appropriate sensitivity in the enforcement of regulations at the games—that refers to a point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes).
	I also expect that the enforcement officers will need additional support from the local police. Given that we are facing cuts of 8% to the local police force in 2012, I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee, either today or at a later date, that that support will come from the local force. It is from the local force that I would particularly like to see the support coming.
	We know that the designation of the Olympic park zone is likely to displace illegal activity to the adjoining areas. That will potentially have an impact on pedestrian safety and on legitimate established traders, with implications for council and police resources too. Again, I ask that finance be put aside to deal with that effectively.
	London’s bid for the 2012 games was brilliantly conceived and executed, and was predicated on a long-term legacy. In order to shape those outcomes, the reality needs to live up to the words, and there is still much more to do. The scale and nature of worklessness in Newham, where nine jobseeker’s allowance claimants are chasing each vacancy, means that there is a need for additional support if local people are to develop the skills to take the jobs that will become available. I welcome the positive results from initiatives such as the Workplace project in Newham but I, like my hon. Friends in east London, have long argued that more needs to be done to ensure that the entire Olympics project creates new kinds of jobs, not only in construction, important though that is, but in hospitality, media, retail, sport and other sectors. Both local and central Government, including all Departments, must continue to work together to exploit the once-in-a-lifetime chance of marketing the area internationally during the games to bring long- overdue private sector investment and create prosperity in our region.
	I wish briefly to discuss other things that are on offer but that we are perhaps not exploiting, and these relate to the tourist trade in east London. The area must be ready to play its part in London’s offer to tourists from all around the world. The Olympic site, Stratford City, Canary wharf, maritime Greenwich, Brick lane, The O2, Greenwich peninsula and the Royal docks are obvious jewels in east London’s crown that are ripe for marketing to businesses. We also have some less obvious tourist assets, which are perhaps unknown to many hon. Members and to many Londoners but which include: the Asian one-stop wedding shop in Green street, in my constituency; and the creative hubs at Three Mills, where “Bad Girls” was filmed, Whitechapel and Leamouth. The east end of London has a great history and a vibrant and hugely diverse local culture. It is well placed to attract the various types of, and the share of, tourists from this country and abroad, if only people knew about it.
	I am grateful for your indulgence in widening the parameters of this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that I can advocate properly on behalf of my constituents, and I offer a final thought in summation. The history of recent Olympic games offers many lessons. It shows that hosting this type of global event can renew local areas and transform the life chances of the people in them, as happened in Barcelona; it can leave underused stadiums, as happened in Athens or Sydney; or it can lead to local populations being priced out of the attractive
	new housing, as happened in Atlanta. The experts are clear that the legacy momentum is the single most important factor determining the extent to which the games drive the transformation of the host city, with a significant element of that legacy needing to be delivered before the games begin. So the Government need urgently to take these lessons to heart. They must get a move on and galvanise the actions needed to secure the long-term benefits from the games if we are to emulate the success of Barcelona, as we should all sincerely hope we are able to do.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am allowing a bit of latitude and I hope that Members will still remember to refer to the Bill. I recognise that it is important to raise constituency interests and I will keep allowing this latitude.

Gloria De Piero: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) told the House that spending on the Government art collection would be frozen for the next two years. However, in a written answer given to me by the same Minister I was told that spending on new works of art for the Government collection would total £298,000 for the next two years. Could you arrange for the Minister to come back to the House to clarify what the true position is?

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not a matter for the Chair to do that. The hon. Lady has rightly put this on the record and I am sure that the Government will have taken her comments on board. If clarification is needed, I am sure it will be forthcoming. I now call Mr Don Foster.

Don Foster: I am not only particularly grateful to you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who represents one of the Olympic boroughs and, as such, has rightly adopted a critical friend approach. What she could not disguise was her enthusiasm for and excitement about the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, which my party shares. Liberal Democrat Members were delighted to be supporters of London’s bid and we were highly pleased with its success. We continue to be full supporters of the work that is going on and we are absolutely confident that not only are we going to have a brilliant sporting and cultural extravaganza in London and elsewhere in 2012, but that it will bring a lasting legacy to all parts of the United Kingdom.
	I am also pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), who was right to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to all the staff who have worked in the Olympic Delivery Authority and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. They have done fantastically well to ensure not only that the games look almost certain to be on budget and on time, but that they deliver the sporting and cultural extravaganza that
	we are looking forward to seeing. It would be remiss of this House if it did not also thank her for the work that she has done during the major part of the period leading up to the bid and since. Although she was successful in achieving many things, two stand out in my mind: the setting up of an organisation that is delivering so well and, in particular, the work she was able to initiate to ensure that we are using these Olympics to inspire young people, not only in this country but all over the world, about sport; and the remarkable but undersung achievement of obtaining, for the first time ever, permission from the IOC for another type of branding—the Inspire mark. It has inspired many people to undertake activities linked to the 2012 games that might otherwise not have happened, and she deserves full praise for that.
	The right hon. Lady was right to say that there is cross-party support for the games and it would be wrong of me not to illustrate that by saying how delighted I am that this Minister has responsibility for the 2012 games. He not only provides a very safe pair of hands and is extremely knowledgeable but, as he rightly says, he has been round the block on this issue for as long as many of us have. This excitement is not confined to us in this Chamber, but it is shared all the way around the United Kingdom. That is demonstrated by not only the fantastic success of the ticket sales, which I shall discuss further in a moment, but the very large number of people, which is far in excess of the number we need, who have applied to be volunteers—games makers—for the Olympics and Paralympics. That illustrates people’s real enthusiasm. In retrospect, we got one thing wrong: I am referring to the fact that at the moment many people do not know whether or not they have been chosen to be games makers and, thus, whether or not they should have applied for tickets. I know that a number of these people would have preferred the games makers to be appointed ahead of the ticket application process, but I say that with the benefit of hindsight.
	We are proud supporters of the Olympics and the Paralympics and we support the measures in the Bill. We are all huge fans of the wonderful and brilliant briefings that we get from the House of Commons Library. The one on this Bill is no exception. In its opening sentence, it makes it very clear that this is not a major Bill but merely one that
	“makes a small number of technical amendments to the advertising and trading, ticket touting, and traffic management provisions of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006.”
	You have been very generous, Mr Deputy Speaker, in allowing people to range on much broader subjects than this not very major Bill, which deals with a few technical amendments.
	Those amendments are important, none the less, but before I deal with them, let me say that I am particularly delighted that the Bill’s title includes the word “Paralympics”. As the former Secretary of State and Minister with responsibility for these matters, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood will know, during the passage of the 2006 Act, on which many of us spent many happy hours, it was necessary for me to table an amendment to ensure that the word “Paralympics” was included in the title and got the same prominence as the Olympics. My zeal for the Paralympics at that time has paid off more recently because the British Paralympic Association has agreed
	that it will base its pre-games training camp in the wonderful city of Bath and the fantastic facilities of Bath university’s sports training village. To follow the tradition established by the hon. Member for West Ham, I can reveal that that news was announced in my wonderful local newspaper,
	The
	Bath Chronicle.
	The measures in the Bill—to stick to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker—deal with advertising and trading provisions, as the Minister has rightly said. The 2006 Act sought to ensure that we have measures in place that meet the IOC requirements and that, crucially, protect the important sponsors for the games from things such as ambush marketing. Any Member who has seen the draft version of the relevant regulations, which, as we have heard, are out for consultation, will be pleased, I am sure, that the proposals offers a light-touch approach while meeting our obligations. It is sufficient to deter illegal activity while avoiding the heavy-handed approach that has marred some previous games. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State confirm in answer to a question earlier today that the measures will be used “sensitively” whereas the Minister, using a different phrase, has said in this debate that they will be used “proportionately”. I think we would all agree that whether the approach is light touch, sensitive or proportionate, that is what we want it to be—we want all three.
	It was probably not sensible for the 2006 Act to suggest that the police, with their myriad other concerns, should be responsible for dealing with goods confiscated from illegal street trading, so it makes sense for that responsibility to be transferred to the ODA. Notwithstanding the large number of interventions that the Minister had to deal with about who the ODA officials would be—I suspect that largely they will be trading standards officers from local councils—the Bill deals only with who will look after the confiscated goods and the rules for handing them back.
	Another reason it makes more sense to move that responsibility to the ODA is that the rules used by the police for handing back such goods are incredibly bizarre and come from a Victorian era. The rules that these measures are based on—the ones used by trading standards officers—are much clearer and much simpler and will therefore be easier to follow. It is right that we should have clear rules about when goods—even vehicles—must be handed back and the Bill provides them for us.
	It also makes sense to have measures in place to ensure that we can deal with changes made at short notice to games venues or the timing of events so that we can continue to meet our obligations to the IOC and our sponsors. Given that Parliament has already agreed to such procedures for the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, I see no reason why we should not be doing exactly the same for London 2012.
	The need for contingencies for last-minute changes to venues or event timing applies equally to transport and the Olympic route network. That is what these small technical measures deal with. It makes sense to address traffic regulation orders, traffic regulation notices and special events notices to ensure that everything that can be done is done to keep London moving during the Olympic and Paralympic games. As other Members have said, particularly the hon. Member for West Ham, we must be ever vigilant to ensure that everybody in London is aware of the implications of the imposition of the Olympic route network. The last thing we want is
	a lot of bad publicity from people claiming that they were not given notice that their regular car parking space would disappear for a few weeks during the Olympics and Paralympics, or from a corner shop that finds that trade drops remarkably because people cannot stop outside it. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that Londoners are well aware of the need for such measures, and although that may be true, every single person needs to be given plenty of notice not only of why these changes are important but of what the impact on them will be.
	Incidentally, I also welcome the huge amount of work that the ODA is doing on traffic demand management, which is rarely talked about in these debates. It is all very well to put in place all the measures to find routes, but we have to remember that businesses in London must continue to operate. It is crucial that we work with those businesses and try, for instance, to persuade them to move the operation of their business to different times so that they are not moving around at a time when we need the route network and other roads in the vicinity to get people to and from the games.
	As we have heard, the final measure in the Bill concerns ticket touting. The games provide a wonderful opportunity for many people to see a wide range of both Olympic and Paralympic sports performed by the best athletes in the world. For many games goers, this will be a real opportunity to engage with sports that they might not necessarily know much about. Having seen a demonstration of one Paralympic sport from the British Paralympic team, training in Bath, I am convinced that it will be the new hit sport in the United Kingdom. If any right hon. or hon. Member has not yet come across goalball, I strongly recommend that they go and find out about it. It is an amazing event with three people in a team who simply have to get a ball into the net of the opposing side. The only twist is that all the participants are totally blind and judge how to play entirely by hearing the sound of a bell inside the ball. It is fast, furious and exciting, and given that Channel 4 has the rights to film the Paralympics, I hope it will focus on that sport and that it will become a national winner.
	As so many people are going to be excited by the games and are going to want to apply for tickets, not just in the recent round but in subsequent rounds—1.8 million people have applied, the statistics show that many of the sports are sold out, 20 million applications have been made for just 6.6 million tickets and more than 50% of the 650 sessions have been oversubscribed—pickings will be ripe for ticket touts unless we take appropriate action. Given the experience of previous games, for example the allegations in Beijing in 2008 that meant that not only outsiders but Olympic officials and the families of competitors were caught up in ticketing scams, it is absolutely right that we should do everything we can in that regard.
	I referred in an intervention to the excellent work of Operation Podium, which has already closed down a large number of illegal sites and will no doubt continue to do so. It was interesting that people working on that project said categorically that the £5,000 fine was insufficient to deter the ticket touts. More recently, the Minister has said that we need to do more about this issue, as has the Home Secretary. I think it is absolutely right that we are increasing the fine from £5,000 to £20,000. I am told
	that in a top-flight football match it is possible for ticket touts to get away with about £100,000, so a £5,000 fine will be seen merely as a business expense whereas a £20,000 fine will make it much more likely that touts will stop and think.
	I think that what is proposed in the Bill is absolutely right and that the level is right, but I say gently to the Minister that if we are doing this for the Olympics, why are we not beginning to do something about all the other sporting events? The Lawn Tennis Association is already asking us why, if we can do this for the Olympics, we are not applying it to Wimbledon. I know that there are complications because we desperately want to get the legitimate, secondary ticket exchange market operating more effectively. I know it is not easy, but the House has to spend a bit more time discussing what we are going to do about ticket touting.
	It is absolutely critical that for the Olympic and Paralympic games we have a robust, efficient, speedy and effective ticket exchange scheme. Many people who bid for tickets in what was meant to be a marathon not a sprint, but which ended up being a marathon with a sprint ending, have overbid because they did not think they would get the full amount. A lot of people are going to be worried about having a lot of tickets on their hands and will not want to use ticket touts but to do things legally, and we have to assure them that a system is in place. It is regrettable that details of the official ticket exchange scheme have not yet been made fully public and it is important that that is done at the earliest opportunity.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I can see the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) twitching in her seat, given her private Member’s Bill, so I thought it might be helpful if I cleared up this point. We have brought the regulations forward in response to a specific threat that has been identified by the Metropolitan police as part of Operation Podium. We also asked the police about ticket touting more generally and they have not identified a more generalised threat. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this issue was considered by the previous Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in the previous Parliament and they both said that there was insufficient evidence of the need to go for a more general ban on ticket touting.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I apologise to the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—I hope that she is going to say a little more about this issue and I think she was absolutely right to bring forward her private Member’s Bill. On its Second Reading she referred to this very specific point and no doubt she will expand on that in a few minutes.
	As I have said, the Bill contains a relatively small number of technical adjustments to the largely excellent 2006 Act and it has my full support. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood said that we had 554 days, I think it is, before the Olympics begin, but I will be getting excited sooner because the torch parade will begin 70 days before that. That is when the real excitement will begin for what is going to be a
	wonderful sporting and cultural extravaganza in this country, bringing real and lasting benefit to businesses, sport, culture, tourism and many other aspects of our life. I am confident that it is going to be a great spectacle that will have a lasting benefit and I think that these small additional measures will ensure that it will be even better than it might otherwise have been.

Sharon Hodgson: I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), who I wish had been able to attend the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill, as I would have had another supporter in the House for what I was trying to achieve.
	I welcome the Bill, which makes some very sensible amendments and additions to the 2006 Act. I am pleased that the Government have so far demonstrated that they are as committed to delivering a vibrant and memorable games as the previous Government were, even if they are not quite so keen on parts of the legacy side of things. I am referring specifically to the free swimming and the school sports partnerships, which have been scrapped.

Hugh Robertson: I am going to take this only so far, as this has been a consensual debate thus far and I do not want change that. I am absolutely prepared to take criticism from the hon. Lady about this if she will tell me what she would have cut from the sports budget had that not been done.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I have allowed latitude but I do not want us to get into a political row. This has been a good debate so far and I am sure that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) will think about how her speech is going to continue.

Sharon Hodgson: I did not intend to expand on that point, but if I had responded, without your intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker, it would have been only to say that such decisions were above my pay grade.
	I want to place on record my praise for the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games and the Olympic Delivery Authority for the excellent way in which the preparations for the games are coming together. It would also be remiss of me not to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) again on the integral role that she has played in securing the games. The fact that we have them here in the UK in the first place is one of her greatest achievements. We talk about legacies, and that is her legacy to the country from her time as the Olympics Minister.
	As we have heard, this week saw the close of the application process for the tickets. I had planned to apply for tickets but then decided that I would wait and test out the resale forum that the right hon. Member for Bath was just asking for more details about. I am interested in seeing how that works, and hon. Members might be aware why I am so interested in that issue. I believe that that mechanism could be rolled out to tackle ticket touting across the board for all major sporting, cultural and live entertainment events, as I suggested on Second Reading of my Sale of Tickets
	(Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill. I am sure that the Minister and other hon. Members will not be surprised that it is on the subject of ticket touting, and therefore clause 3 of the Bill, that I wish to concentrate my comments today.
	I agree wholeheartedly with the provision to increase the fine for those prosecuted under section 31 of the 2006 Act. I know from my own meetings with officers from Operation Podium that touts caused serious problems at the Beijing games, and it is absolutely right that the Government and the police should do everything within their power to ensure that the same does not happen here. As I told the House on Second Reading of my Bill in January, those officers from Operation Podium told me, when I met them to discuss my Bill, that a fine of £5,000 would be seen as an occupational hazard by the real hard core of touts, particularly as it is possible to make that much profit or more on a single ticket to one of the premium sessions, such as the opening or closing ceremony.
	The right hon. Member for Bath has mentioned Wimbledon, which happens every year but for which debenture tickets have been known to sell at mark-ups of £10,000 each. The Olympics takes place every four years, but it is not in the UK every four years or even every 40 years, so for many of our constituents, even the relatively well-off ones, being able to go to them is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It would therefore be no surprise whatever to see tickets going at astronomical mark-ups. That prompts the question that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked—whether even a £20,000 fine would be seen as nothing more than an inconvenience to some of the hardcore, criminal, organised touts. However, I understand that Ministers have to draw the line somewhere, and I am fairly confident that £20,000 is sufficient to deter the touts at the bottom of the pyramid—the kind of chancers who might ordinarily get half a dozen tickets to a gig to sell on. I hope that when big operators are caught, the prosecution will assess the offence as a lifestyle crime and claw back more substantial amounts of money by using the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that issue in his closing remarks.
	The next key part of the drive to stamp out touts from the Olympics is to remove their market as far as possible. By that I mean making sure the public know that tickets they buy from anywhere other than the official website—and, from next year, I believe, the official resale or exchange forum—have been sold to them illegally. For many, although not all, this will serve to change their attitude to buying from a tout. Of course, the task of changing attitudes might be difficult, because touting for almost every other form of live entertainment, as we heard in response to the right hon. Member for Bath, is still allowed and condoned by this Government—as it was, it must be said, by the previous Government. Indeed, some Opposition Members came along to the Second Reading of my private Member’s Bill to say that they thought ticket touting was a classic case of the free market in action and that touts were nothing more than entrepreneurs. It is good to know that the spirit of Baroness Thatcher is still unashamedly alive on the Tory Back Benches, but it makes one wonder whether the Minister might have a small Back-Bench rebellion on his hands today.
	However, I notice that some of my main adversaries during the debate on my private Member’s Bill are not present today. Perhaps the Minister has already neutered their free-market tendencies—I hope that they are recovering well. Presumably, they might say that Olympic tickets are indistinct from tickets to a 200-capacity U2 gig, and are an asset to be traded like any other. Either way, I am pleased that the amendment is being made today and that touting’s parasitical nature and criminality are being taken seriously by both the police and the Minister.
	During the course of the conversations that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will have had with police and officers on the inclusion of clause 3 in this Bill, I hope that they will have been sufficiently convinced of the egregious nature of ticket touting to engage with me now and look for ways of ensuring that fans of other sporting and live entertainment events will enjoy similar protection. After all, Ministers must have been very convinced by the evidence presented to them, as we have already heard.
	A Home Office press notice on 10 March stated, in a direct quote from the Home Secretary:
	“The focus of the government and everyone involved is to deliver a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic Games that London, the UK and the world can enjoy. It will not be spoiled by ticket touts.”
	That is great, and I could not agree more. Allowing touting, either by not legislating or by not enforcing that legislation, would be hugely detrimental to ordinary fans who want to get along to the games. We know that because we can see how detrimental it is every night of the week in towns and cities up and down the country to fans who want to go to gigs, matches, festivals and shows.
	In the Home Office press release, Assistant Commissioner Chris Allison, the national Olympic security co-ordinator, stated:
	“We do not want our Games blighted by touts....Touts are part of organised criminal networks, often involved in other crimes, and we are committed to dismantling them layer by layer.”
	The Minister intervened on the right hon. Member for Bath to say that that relates in particular to the Olympic games, but I have been presented with evidence showing that those criminal networks are not only set up to take advantage of the Olympic games, but that they already exist and are taking advantage every time a bout of tickets goes on sale.

Hugh Robertson: I made an undertaking on Second Reading of the hon. Lady’s Bill to look at that issue again, notwithstanding the advice of the Select Committee and, indeed, the position we inherited from the previous Government. It was made abundantly clear to me that there was no such evidence. She told me on Second Reading that there was evidence, but when I asked the Home Office directly I was told that there is no evidence of a more generalised threat. There is evidence of a specific threat towards certain high-profile events, of which the Olympics are one.

Sharon Hodgson: I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister—heaven forbid—but when I met officers from Operation Podium and from the Met’s team on money laundering, I was told that they had evidence and that they were dealing with touts on a large, organised criminal basis and in relation to all
	touting. They said specifically that they were working towards the Olympics, and there have already been arrests under Operation Podium, but this concerns gangs that were already operating and making large sums of money; the industry runs to £10 billion.
	I could not agree more with what Chris Allison said, but it is interesting to note the difference between the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue. The Minister committed on Second Reading of my Bill to looking further into the matter, and I am pleased that he has done so, as obviously his conversations have led to clause 3. I hope that Ministers now see that there is a problem. The Minister is still saying that the problem relates specifically to the Olympic games—

Hugh Robertson: Specific high-profile events.

Sharon Hodgson: “Specific high-profile events”: that recognises that the problem could go beyond the Olympic games. If the Minister does not mind, I will take what he just said as a very positive sign that perhaps my campaign could still catch hold, and I could go some way towards convincing him of the need for further legislation.
	I am aware that the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) spoke to the Secretary of State’s office on 17 March about setting up a meeting with representatives from the live entertainment and sporting industries, him and myself to discuss this matter. I believe that he is yet to receive a response to that request, but I hope that it will find its way into the Secretary State’s red box soon. Many prominent entertainment and industry professionals are very keen for a chance to put their case to the Secretary of State, and could perhaps bring the further evidence that he might require on the criminality, and how widespread the problem is, not only for major sporting events but for festivals and music gigs.
	To conclude, I support the Bill and its aims wholeheartedly and look forward to it reaching the statute book in good time, preferably before people get to hear whether their ticket applications have been successful, because they may then be tempted to tout them. Clarification on whether the Bill will be passed before people find out whether their ticket applications have been successful would be very helpful. As I said, I hope that in the course of arriving at clause 3 the Government’s position on touting more generally will have shifted sufficiently to mean that they will now engage meaningfully with me and other hon. Members from both sides of the House who want more action to be taken to protect fans of all live entertainment, sporting and cultural events from exploitation by touts.

Richard Ottaway: One of the noticeable features of today’s debate is the largely all-party spirit in which it has been conducted. The Minister has been though this for many years, in opposition and now in government, and forms a formidable trio alongside the right hon. Members for Bath (Mr Foster) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). I pay tribute to all three for the way in which they have maintained the all-party consensus on the subject.
	One of the Secretary of State’s smarter decisions was to reappoint the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood to the Olympic Board, which I suspect was largely because of her non-partisan approach when in government, which she has continued in opposition. She has left us, however, with the ultimate sports quiz question: “Why did the last sod come from Scunthorpe?” I do not know the answer to it, but I suspect that it may not just be a sports quiz question; it may appear in lots of comedy shows. Perhaps the Minister can inform us of the answer when he winds up the debate. Anyway, the right hon. Lady has left the question tantalisingly there.
	The games are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that has resonated through the debate. Everyone recognises that point, and those who are hostile to the games seem to be fading away as the Olympics get closer and the obvious enthusiasm for them continues. As a London Member, I am proud of my city’s ability to put on the games, and my constituents are beginning to join in the enthusiasm around them.
	The games present a huge opportunity for London, and for the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is not still here—[ Interruption. ] Oh, she is still here, but she has moved on to the Opposition Front Bench. She spoke about the way in which her constituency has been regenerated, and I look not just at her constituency, but at the east end of the capital, of which I am a part. For it to be regenerated for £9 billion is a pretty good deal, because it involves not just that £9 billion, but what it is levering in, and the regeneration that the Minister and the shadow Minister mentioned. I join them in paying tribute to the way in which the Olympic Delivery Authority has brought that about.
	I remember John Armitt saying that there was never a better time to build the site, because he had a competitive materials market in which to operate and plenty of labour at the time. We should be grateful for large mercies in that respect, but he took his opportunity and has done a great job. The stadium was, I think, completed a few weeks early and on budget, which is tremendous, and all those concerned are to be congratulated.
	I congratulate also the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games on its continued meticulous planning over the past few years. Its attention to detail has paid off, and it culminated in a very successful ticketing exercise. I am hugely impressed by the statistics, which show that more than 20 million tickets have been applied for by 1.8 million people, and that it is the biggest ticketing exercise ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. That is sensational stuff, it bodes well and I, like others who have spoken, will be very surprised if there are empty seats in virtually any stadium during the games. I will not follow the right hon. Member—my right hon. partner—for Bath in his enthusiasm for specific sports, but some will obviously be more attractive than others.
	While I am on the subject of LOCOG, as chairman of the all-party London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games group I welcome its co-operation with that group. Thanks to LOCOG, the House has had briefings which many Members have attended; indeed, it has been probably one of the best attended all-party groups. We have had meetings on volunteering, ticketing and the Paralympics, and we have an upcoming meeting on the education programme, a very important briefing on 23 May on
	the torch relay route and another briefing planned on the cultural Olympiad. It is thanks to the co-operation of LOCOG that the meetings have been so successful, and I also congratulate the Minister and his Department on the seamless transition before and after the election, which has been maintained throughout.
	I welcome this important Bill. It might be a small, logistical and technical Bill, but its impact will create ripples across everything that is being done, so in truth everything that has been said today has been in order, because of the Bill’s knock-on effect. For many years I was involved with the British Paralympic Association, whose headquarters were in Croydon. The association has now moved, and I am well aware of its difficulties involving advertising and trading, and the fact that after the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 it had to cease trading because of the use of the Olympic and Paralympic symbols. It is relying on a grant for the period of the games, and one of my concerns is that afterwards it will have to start raising funds again but will have lost its database and its hard core of sponsors and suppliers who have helped it over the years. I recognise, however, the importance of the advertising and trading features in the Bill.
	I recognise also the importance of the traffic management proposals. The Minister said that these are “public transport games”, but that was a reference to public transport access to the games. The knock-on effect in the rest of London will be quite profound, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) pointed out. London is very sensitive to traffic. It will flow quite normally during a holiday period, but just a small bottleneck can have a huge and profound impact, causing jams throughout the capital, which often knock on into the outer suburbs.
	I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill. The use of the Olympic lanes will be very important. Perhaps the Minister could clarify when they will be introduced and removed, given the knock-on effect. I believe that there is to be a moratorium on roadworks throughout this period—in fact, I think, for most of next year. Can he confirm that?

Hugh Robertson: indicated  assent .

Richard Ottaway: The Minister is nodding, so there is no need for him to deal with that when he winds up.
	Let me draw to the Minister’s and the House’s attention the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee entitled “FCO Public Diplomacy: The Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012”, which has quite a cross-over into the Bill. Unusually for a Select Committee report, it is fairly uncritical of the Government because it expresses the belief that they are on the right track in enhancing the perceptions that the rest of the world has of Britain—a responsibility of the Foreign Office.
	It is interesting to learn that in the world’s perception, the UK is seen as
	“fair, innovative, diverse, confident and stylish”,
	but we are also seen as
	“arrogant, stuffy, old-fashioned and cold.”
	The games present us with an opportunity to change the world’s perception of this country. We want to be seen as a welcoming, diverse, tolerant and generous nation, and the games give us a huge opportunity to illustrate that we are just that. At the Barcelona and
	Sydney games, people were able to change the world’s perception of those countries to their benefit, whereas the Beijing games, with the surrounding human rights issues, and Athens, with the lateness of the construction programme, formed an adverse perception. Germany’s hosting of the World cup hugely enhanced the world’s perception of that country.

Andrew Bingham: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is a football supporter, but does he remember the similarly good impression of this country that Euro 96 gave to football fans across Europe? I remember the event quite well; it was a football odyssey that portrayed British football grounds and football supporters in a good light.

Richard Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a risk involved in this. If we get it right, it enhances perceptions; if we get it wrong, it is very dangerous. All it would need is a serious traffic snarl-up or a security issue for the world to form a very different perception of Britain. That is why the measures in the Bill are rather important. The way in which we deal with an adverse situation will be very significant. Let me give a small illustration. The situation with the trapped Chilean miners was a disaster for Chile, but the Chileans turned it round completely in the way that they dealt with it and got the miners out. If we have a difficult situation during the Olympic games, how we deal with it will be as important as ensuring that it does not happen in the first place. One of the proposals in the Select Committee report is that a rapid rebuttal unit should be established to deal rapidly with an incident during the games. That is important, and I believe that it is in hand.
	The Olympic games present a huge opportunity. The world can come together and, just for a few days, speak with one voice focused on a single event. I understand that we will have nearly 100 Heads of State coming here next year, which in itself presents a logistical exercise in how on earth we deal with them. Let us show the world that we can do this in style. Let us demonstrate that we can put on a good show and show the world that we are tolerant, diverse, welcoming and generous—great British values that are of huge importance. It is well within our ability to do so.

Rushanara Ali: I am delighted to speak in this debate as a Member of Parliament from one of the host boroughs, the London borough of Tower Hamlets. I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) highlighted the positive sentiments and great pride that were felt by people around the country on the wonderful day when we celebrated winning the Olympic bid. The bid highlighted London’s diversity, dynamism, creativity and youth. It will be remembered for the wonderful, imaginative image that Britain showed the world of a city that is incredibly exciting, a place that is incredibly welcoming, and a place in the east end that is famous for its heritage, resilience and character.
	Many of my constituents in Bethnal Green and Bow can see the Olympic stadium at the end of their streets, and the games have already started to impact on their lives. Many communities in London rightly expect to
	have a central role in the games, and they deserve a stake in the Olympic legacy, whether in the areas of employment, environmental impact or sport. My constituents, like me and other people from the host boroughs and across London, feel passionately about the games and want them to succeed. We are proud to be a host borough and to host the Olympic park, and look forward to showing the world the east end of London at its best.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) has recalled Labour’s original vision of the games as an engine for physical and social regeneration in the east end. It is a great opportunity to showcase a vibrant and proud London, and the great opportunities that it has, especially for young people. We hope that the games will inspire them for the rest of their lives, and that in years to come many of them will recall next year’s Olympics as the thing that inspired them to become sportsmen and women and to make their country proud.
	There are of course deep concerns. There are well-founded concerns in my constituency over the recent cuts to school sports funding, youth facilities, and community and elite sports facilities. Some of the organisations that are losing funding are working to get volunteers engaged in the Olympics.

Hugh Robertson: Just to be absolutely clear, there are no cuts to elite facility funding. The money that the previous Government pledged to UK Sport, which deals with elite facilities, has been honoured in full. Community facilities, which are delivered through the whole sport plans, were protected by raising the amount of money that sport gets through the lottery.

Rushanara Ali: I thank the Minister for that response, but he should consider visiting my constituency and some of the organisations that will be affected by the cuts. As I was saying, one of the organisations—[ Interruption. ] If the Minister will let me, I will finish my sentence. One of the organisations that I visited recently, which is engaged in preparing young people to be volunteers, is losing funding and will struggle to get people into those opportunities. There are many other examples of funding cuts that are affecting young people. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me that funding will not be cut—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to help reassure the hon. Lady. We are dealing with the Bill and I have allowed a lot of latitude for Members to stray off it. However, we should not be scoring political points when dealing with the Bill. By all means, the hon. Lady may mention her constituency and the benefits of the Olympics, but I will not allow this to stray into a political row that has nothing to do with the debate.

Rushanara Ali: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that I will not stray beyond the Bill, but I would like to turn to the subject of employment.

Hugh Robertson: That is not in the Bill. It is an amending Bill.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that the Minister is going to wait, and that if he wishes to intervene, he will do so in the correct way.

Rushanara Ali: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	There is great concern in my constituency about the need to ensure that the opportunities that will be offered as a result of the Olympics, such as the 100,000 job and volunteering opportunities, can be taken up by local people. Although that is not specifically related to the Bill, it is important to those of us who represent constituencies in the east end of London that local people, particularly young people, can receive such benefits, especially given the current unemployment situation. I hope that more effort will be made to encourage and support young people and others to get into those jobs.
	I turn to policing and enforcement, on which I welcome many of the clauses in the Bill. In the face of the resource constraints on local police services, can the Minister assure us that there will not be additional pressure on the police in constituencies such as mine, and that every effort will be made to ensure that they are properly supported?
	May I also ask the Minister for clarification of the level of input and support that might be required from local authorities such as Tower Hamlets in the logistical and preparatory work, including on policing, alongside the work that will be done by the ODA? That is particularly significant for my constituency, because the local authority is facing major cuts—some £72 million over the next four years. I hope that the Bill will not mean any hidden costs for host boroughs, but I know that there are concerns about how the costs will be met.
	I reiterate the point that other Members have made about ticket touting by welcoming the suggestions in the Bill to do with penalties. All possible measures should be exhausted to ensure that those who are involved in organised crime and seek to exploit local people are properly fined and punished.
	I turn to the subject of traffic regulations. People in my constituency understandably feel let down and disappointed by the changing of the Olympic marathon route away from the east end areas of Tower Hamlets and Poplar and Limehouse. Despite that change, local people will still experience some of the disruption associated with the games during the weeks when they are taking place, and I hope that their sentiments are recognised. I have had hundreds of letters from constituents, particularly young people, who feel that the change was a betrayal of the original commitments, and it is right that that sentiment is recorded today.
	Tower Hamlets is the only host borough that will not be hosting any of the games. It is a source of great pride that the other host boroughs will host events, but there is a great deal of disappointment in Tower Hamlets. I hope that the Minister will take on board the need for every effort to be made to ensure that people in constituencies such as mine are engaged in the games and have the opportunity to take part in other ways. The marathon was going to be a free event available to people in one of the poorest boroughs in the country. I hope the Minister takes that on board.
	As other hon. Members have cited their local newspapers, I ought to do the same to keep in tradition. The East London Advertiser, one of the great east end papers,
	which recently had to move from my constituency, ran a spirited campaign, working with local young people, London Citizens and TELCO—the East London Community Organisation—to try to get LOCOG to change its mind. Unfortunately, the campaign was unsuccessful, but local people might have an opportunity to organise and hold an alternative community marathon so that they can be involved. I hope we can rely on support for that from the Minister and from LOCOG if that goes ahead.
	LOCOG has responded by welcoming that campaign and by trying to create other opportunities for the area by way of early access to job vacancies and so on. However, unfortunately, those initiatives fall short, and I hope the Minister takes on board some of those points so that we can have a proper legacy and make the most of the Olympics. Showcasing Brick lane and business opportunities are welcome, but as many young people have pointed out, there is more to the east end and Tower Hamlets than curry houses.

Justin Tomlinson: The hon. Lady can help on legacy by championing the school Olympics principle locally, which I have been doing recently. That is a tangible way in which MPs, as community leaders, can make a big difference and encourage a legacy for young people.

Rushanara Ali: Colleagues and I are working with LOCOG on that, and a number of schools have engaged, which is welcome. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that a host borough which expected a high-profile event, was willing to put up with disruptions and so on, and was so optimistic, was clearly greatly disappointed when the proposed marathon route was cancelled. Given the poverty in the borough, and its enormous enthusiasm, much more could be done. We have just under 500 days before the Olympics, and opportunities could be seized in that time. I therefore ask the Minister, and LOCOG and other agencies, to use the final few months to do everything they can to create a genuinely lasting legacy.
	On pollution and the environmental consequences of the games, given the previous Government’s clear ambition and focus on employment, the reduction in pollution and investment in public transport, recent reports have caused deep concern. I hope that we will be reassured that every effort will be made to ensure a reduction in congestion and that there are no unnecessary disruptions to local people as they move back and forth from work and so on during the weeks of the Olympics.
	In conclusion, I reiterate my support for the Bill, but I felt it important to emphasise the wider issues of employment and the sporting legacy and others that affect constituencies such as mine. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the many people who live in constituencies such as mine. They are incredibly excited and passionate about it, and they want a chance to get involved. I hope that, as we move towards the games, the Government will ensure that the people of London have the chance to make the most of these wonderful and exciting games.

Mary Macleod: The Olympic and Paralympic games are events like no other. To have them happening here in London is a once-in-ae-
	lifetime experience. I may be biased, but I believe that London is the best city in the world and I am confident that we will deliver a world-class games.

Andrew Bingham: On that point, does my hon. Friend hope to emulate the Manchester Commonwealth games of a few years ago, which were excellent?

Mary Macleod: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Although London is the best city in the world, Manchester comes a close second and I am sure that the success of those games bodes well.
	The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about the pride felt at winning the bid, and that was shared across London and the country. It will be an opportunity to show what London and the UK can do. The Olympic games is the ultimate sporting event in the world, bringing together competitors from almost every nation. It is synonymous with the almighty struggle to be the best in each sport, as encapsulated in the Olympic motto, “Citius, Altius, Fortius” or “Faster, Higher, Stronger”.
	Hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games in London provides an unrivalled opportunity to showcase the best of what our country can offer—a world-class sporting event, fantastic venues and accommodation, open and welcoming hospitality, and creativity and quality from the opening ceremony to the overall look and feel of the event, including the marketing, food and drink and merchandising available. Get it right and the London Olympics and Paralympics will provide the very best advertisement to the world of why London, and the UK as a whole, is the place to be for business, hospitality, tourism, sport and entertainment.
	But the games are also about creating a lasting legacy, not just in east London but elsewhere in London and across the country. There will of course be many physical legacy elements from the games. The Olympic park will give an exciting new impetus to east London and will generate new housing and business opportunities. All Londoners will benefit from the improved transport links that have been put in place for the games.
	However, to get the most out of the games, we also need to focus on the non-physical legacy aspects. In particular, we must ensure that the good work that has been done to encourage children to participate in sporting events linked to the Olympics continues and helps to foster a renewed interest in sport before, during and after the games. In London, and especially in the Hounslow area of my constituency, we have a significant and growing problem with childhood obesity. The best legacy we could have would be a long-term increase in the number of young people taking part in regular sporting activities. The Mayor of London’s Get Set programme aims to address this and I am pleased that the majority of schools in Chiswick, Brentford, Isleworth and Hounslow are already signed up to it. Schoolchildren can focus on how they can demonstrate the Olympic values of friendship, excellence and respect, and the Paralympic virtues of courage, determination, equality and inspiration. The programme is also continuing to develop sporting ambassadors, which has been successful across the borough of Hounslow.
	As a London MP, I believe that it is important to get local Londoners involved. The volunteering scheme has seen all ages and backgrounds offering to take part in
	what is a great community cohesion scheme. It is also important that London residents benefit from the games as they have contributed to the cost. I hope that people across London—and especially in west London—feel those benefits.
	The Bill builds on and strengthens provisions put in place in the 2006 Act and addresses some important matters. On advertising and trading, it is vital that we safeguard the look and feel of the games and avoid the potential for the over-commercialisation of the event. I welcome therefore the measures to extend the powers to seize unauthorised and fake merchandise. Many companies have contributed to the success of the games by developing official products and services, and their rights need to be protected, so we cannot allow ambush marketing to infiltrate the areas around the venues. We also need to take a sensible approach to implementation and focus on the mass sale of merchandise, not on seizing items of clothing worn to the event.
	The presence of ticket touts is unwelcome. I am sure that the increase in the fine to £20,000 will help greatly to deter them. The ticket sales approach for the Olympics was a new one to most people, and such was the desire to attend the games that many people registered for significantly more tickets than perhaps they could afford, so I was glad to hear from the Minister that it will be possible for people to resell tickets at face value to family and friends without the prospect of being criminalised. Given the issues near the deadline, it would be good to provide the opportunity to buy tickets to those unable to get the ones they wanted.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about traffic management, which is critical to the games’ success. The sheer size and scale of the games is daunting. It has been suggested that the Olympics is equivalent to hosting 26 world championships simultaneously, so it is a huge challenge to implement. Clearly a top priority is to ensure the safe and smooth-running of the games. That is critical for the games family and spectators. At the same time, however, we must also keep London moving and working smoothly for residents, workers and businesses. It is not just the east London area directly around the Olympic park that will feel the impact of the increase in people; there are competitive venues and training camps across London, and the route to and from Heathrow airport, which runs through my constituency, will also form a significant part of the Olympic route network during the games.
	Companies such as Fuller’s brewery in my constituency have expressed concern that they need to have as much notice as possible of the details of planned road closures across London. For example, significant changes to working practices, such as night deliveries, might be required to keep our pubs fully stocked with beer, and it will take time to develop new contracts for drivers and resolve issues such as noise in residential areas. We should also consider those who drive in and around London and the possibility of allowing cars still to come into London, perhaps between 7 am and 10 pm. It would be worth ensuring that those who work and need to use the roads can still do so.
	I am sure that local authorities will be involved in the detailed planning of traffic management and road closures, particularly where there are known traffic issues. Everywhere
	in London has them to a greater or lesser extent. An issue for me will be along Chiswick high road, where the right turn into Sutton Court road coming off the A4 will be closed, forcing more traffic on to the high road. I will be speaking to my local team to ensure that they are considering the matter closely and not creating traffic problems in areas around London.
	In summary, I welcome and support the Bill. The London Olympics and Paralympics provide us with an outstanding opportunity to showcase the best that we have to offer to the world, and I look forward to 2012 with great excitement. Let us make these the best games ever and show what can be achieved on such a great scale. Let it help young people aspire to go on and do great things; let us create a strong feeling of Britishness and community cohesion; let us do all we can to create a strong, lasting legacy for the whole of London; and let us use this as an opportunity to get more people re-engaged or involved in community and competitive sport, creating stronger communities, a greater team spirit and a healthier nation.

Bob Blackman: It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) in speaking about the important Bill before us today. I rise as someone who, in a former guise, served as the Conservative Olympics spokesman in the Greater London authority, during the formative period when much of the work was initiated. I was also the deputy chairman of the GLA’s economic development, culture, sport and tourism committee for four years. We were responsible for the scrutiny of the Olympics and the development of the whole process.
	I well remember the initial scepticism felt by most people in London when we began bidding for the games. That changed to wild enthusiasm when we heard the wonderful news on 6 July 2005, which followed that brilliant presentation. I compliment Lord Coe and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister at the time, who did so much excellent work to ensure that we were successful. However, we then woke up on 7 July to the horrors of the bombings on London transport and the security alert. That made us think of what could happen during the Olympics if we are not properly prepared, serving as a terrible early warning for everyone.
	I well remember the early concerns about the site. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) encouraged people to visit the site. I have been there on many occasions, the first time when there was absolutely nothing there. It was an industrial wasteland, and one needed great vision to imagine what would happen in the interim period—something that has indeed happened, and which I welcome. We had concerns about financing the Olympics and in particular about the budget. We should remember that the redevelopment of Wembley stadium was an absolute fiasco. At the same time, we were considering the development of a vast range of venues. It is therefore extremely good news to everyone concerned that the completion of the various venues is coming in on budget, or possibly even below budget.
	We were also concerned about the cost to Londoners. I well remember the previous Mayor announcing to the assembly that the cost to a Londoner would be no more than the daily cost of a Walnut Whip. The only problem is that the daily cost of a Walnut Whip over 25 years is
	likely to lead to diabetes and long-term health issues, which is precisely the problem that London is facing in having to pay for the games over an extended period. Londoners have also felt a great deal of frustration, particularly in west and north-west London, at having to pay for the cost of the games, while those living close to the edge of east London are experiencing the benefit, yet incurring none of the costs. That will be an important issue later.
	We were also concerned that the costs had escalated, so it is good news that the budget is coming in the right way. The other concern that I would like the Minister to consider is the fact that national lottery funding was diverted to assist the games, as a result of which national lottery funding for large areas of London was removed. We were promised at the time that this funding would be returned from the profits from the subsequent land sales. We must not lose sight of that opportunity.
	Part and parcel of this whole process has been the regeneration capability in that part of the world. The legacy of the games will not be just a sporting one, but a real legacy for the lives of east Londoners in particular. The key challenge will be to ensure that we do not allow what are, quite frankly, rabbit hutches to be put up at the Olympic park, leading to low-cost housing, thereby building in all the problems that were once part of the east end and which we are now addressing. I trust that the powers that be will ensure that that does not happen.
	The venue development has been a wonder to behold. The fact that the venues are coming on stream much more quickly than expected and will be ready for public use and test events as early as this summer is an excellent testimony to all the hard work done by the ODA and LOCOG. I remember grilling the leadership of the ODA and LOCOG and feeling comforted that we had such excellent people at the helm making all this happen. I am delighted that the decisions taken by the appropriate people at the time to employ those people has borne fruit, and we should pay tribute to them.
	Turning to the Bill, I want to raise an issue relating to the sporting events. We should remember that most people think of the Olympic games as consisting of the swimming, for about a week, and then the athletics. We are talking, however, about a broad range of events—about 26 of them—taking place throughout July and August, and into September, in the Olympics and Paralympics, that can create an explosion of great sporting legacy for the people of this country and encourage young people, in particular, to take part in sporting events that they would never have dreamed of taking part in.
	I pay tribute to the ticketing arrangements so far. When I signed on to the website to bid for my tickets, I was sceptical about whether it would work. I found it very easy to access and to use, however, and the people who designed the process should be complimented on it. It is sad that there were problems on the last day, given the extended period of time in which people could apply for tickets. The fact that the advertising would lead to an increase in the number of people applying at the last minute was predictable, and it is sad that there was overloading of the system towards the end. However, I think that we have got the ticketing arrangements right.
	I have one fear in that regard, which is that, if we are not careful, we could see rows of empty seats at the qualifying events, which are being sold at lower prices. I
	know that many sessions are oversubscribed, but I suspect that that will not apply to the qualifying events. I hope that schoolchildren across London will be given access to any such unsold tickets, so that they can have an opportunity to attend some of those undersubscribed events. That would have the dual purpose of filling the empty seats and encouraging young people to participate.
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for West Ham about the fines for ticket touting. I draw a distinction between people who have bought tickets and pass them on to friends or family if they are unable to use them, the tout in the street who is trying to make a turn on tickets, and the seriously organised individuals who are making this a business. The proposal in the Bill to raise the fine to £20,000 is welcome, but I would ask the Minister to consider in Committee introducing a much higher upper limit, particularly for those who are turning ticket touting into a business. We could perhaps fine those involved in organised ticket touting £100,000, with tiered levels of fines for those involved in the various other aspects of the activity, and with clear guidance as to how the fines should be implemented.
	On travel arrangements, we must remember that London has to keep moving and that other sporting events will be taking place while the Olympics and Paralympics are going on. There will be a full programme of premier league football throughout most of the period of the games, as well as champions league matches and a wide range of other sporting events taking place across London. We must remember that spectators going to those events will not want to be inconvenienced by the fact that the Olympics and Paralympics are taking place. The potential closures of roads and lanes presents a risk to regular drivers, as they could be seriously inconvenienced, particularly if they are not aware of the arrangements that are in place.
	Let me repeat a point I mentioned in interventions. There is a massive danger that large parts of London, particularly west and north-west London, become glorified car parks for people wishing to use the tube network for the last part of their journey to the Olympic venues. I believe consideration needs to be given to encourage local authorities to introduce temporary measures for the period of the Olympics, rather than imposing potentially draconian measures unnecessarily throughout the whole year. Experience around the Wembley stadium area suggests that residents are severely inconvenienced when a minor event is going on at the stadium and draconian traffic control measures are implemented. Local authorities should be given the opportunity to address that issue in a particular way.
	I believe we have the potential to run a very successful and brilliant event in 2012. I think we have an opportunity to create a lasting legacy for the east end, for the whole of London and for sport in general. I look forward to the newly re-elected Mayor inviting his predecessor, Mr Livingstone, to come along and play a part in the opening and closing ceremonies of the Olympic games, as we celebrate London at its best.

Andrew Bingham: I want to make just a few brief remarks about the ticket tout element of the Bill, which I fully support. People like myself who have applied for tickets often sit with fingers crossed, hoping for the best. Like others, I applied for more
	tickets than I would like in the hope of being lucky in the ballot and getting enough to go to watch what I would like to see. We are told that any tickets we do not want should be given back for re-sale. I am a little concerned, however, at the capacity of the website to deal with all this, as extra tickets will all be returned in a very short time. We saw what happened at the deadline earlier this week. That reinforces my concern: when people want to send their tickets back, if the web capacity is not able to handle it, they might take them elsewhere and hand them to touts.
	Like many Members, I am a keen sports fan and I have been to many sporting events. Time after time, fans run the gauntlet of people outside the venues wanting to sell or buy tickets. True sports fans, or indeed music fans, might not have been able to get tickets for an event, yet the touts always seem to have a fistful of tickets.
	I applaud the Bill and the increase in the fine, which I think will help to eliminate the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) commented on the increase in the fine, and I wonder whether we could increase it to £20,000 per ticket touted, which would be a severe deterrent, particularly to serial touts. As I said, my only concern is that the web capacity for ticket reallocation be sufficient to prevent people from getting fed up and selling their tickets to whoever it might be who then stands outside the grounds, selling them at a premium. That is my only concern; otherwise, the Bill is excellent.

Christopher Chope: I wish to address my relatively brief remarks to clause 4, which deals with traffic and is entitled “Orders and notices relating to temporary prohibitions etc. on roads”. Under paragraph 15 of the schedule to the Olympic Route Network Designation Order 2009, the A31 from its junction with the A35, going east to junction 1 of the M27 is part of that network. It includes junctions, slip roads and roundabouts. Under section 11 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, the Secretary of State is allowed to designate roads
	“for the purpose of facilitating travel… to and from London Olympic events”
	and for “other purposes connected” thereto.
	I have a number of questions to put to the Minister, particularly about the interaction of this order and proposed works to the Canford Bottom roundabout, which is a notorious junction in the vicinity of Wimborne. It is encountered by people travelling west on the A31 after a period of travel on a single carriageway and it then continues with a single carriageway on the other side. Four other roads join it, so there is an intersection of six roads around one roundabout. I can confidently predict that at this time, on the eve of a bank holiday, it will already be clogged with traffic, particularly in a westerly direction. That is the situation during the holiday season, and of course the Olympic games will take place at the height of the holiday season next year.
	Although we in Dorset are delighted that the Olympic sailing venue will be in Weymouth, for my constituents in the east of Dorset, Weymouth is at least an hour’s
	drive away in normal conditions. We are not talking about a local venue, but about a venue some distance away.
	The Minister and the Government have said all along that the intention is that the activities of local people and businesses should not be disrupted by the establishment of the Olympic route network. What concerns me is the interaction between these proposals and the Government’s proposals to change the layout at the Canford Bottom roundabout. There has been a long-standing campaign for a flyover at Canford Bottom, but it would cost well over £10 million and is apparently unaffordable in the present circumstances. The Government have therefore produced an alternative proposal to replace the roundabout with what is described as a hamburger junction. There was a consultation meeting in my constituency on the subject at the end of last month. A hamburger junction is something of a rarity in my part of the world, and when I asked where one could be found, I was told that the closest was in Cardiff. Replacing a roundabout with a hamburger junction is certainly a novel approach.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is teasing the House to distraction. Would he be kind enough to give a clear description of a hamburger junction, so that we all know what he is talking about?

Christopher Chope: I wish that I could. When asked to describe it at the meeting, the officials said that they preferred to refer to a “plan”. However, I understand that it is a junction that looks like a hamburger. The main A31 carriageway—the meat in the hamburger, as it were—would go through the middle, and there would be light-controlled crossings for the four side roads. That is what is described by the Highways Agency as a hamburger junction. I hope that in due course the right hon. Gentleman will be able to have one in Bath, but perhaps before he commits himself he should have a look at the one in Cardiff to see whether it works.
	Members’ interest in this subject is becoming apparent, but, as will be appreciated, the people who live close to the proposed junction are even more interested in knowing whether it will achieve the objective that the Highways Agency says that it will achieve, which is to improve the operation of the junction on the A31. What worries local residents is the possibility that their ability to cross from one part of the constituency to the other—into Wimborne—will be impeded by the junction, because extra priority will be given to through traffic at the expense of local traffic.
	In order to tease out such issues, there would normally be a fairly long period of consultation on a major highway proposal such as this. The project will cost £5.7 million. However, the Highways Agency tells me that there will be only a three-week window of opportunity for written representations, starting immediately after the local elections. The explanation seems to be that this junction needs to be changed as part of the ODA’s remit to ensure that the Olympic route network delivers people from London to Weymouth within a specified time frame.
	I am enthusiastic about clause 4 as it will enable the ODA to ensure that emergency action can be taken to deal with congestion around the Canford Bottom roundabout or anywhere else on the network without the need for major roadworks to be rushed through
	between now and the time of the Olympic games. In responding to the debate, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me that the construction of this hamburger junction is not a crucial part of the Olympic route network, and that the network will be able to deliver its objectives even if this hamburger junction is not constructed. My constituents are sceptical about this solution; they think it may be the wrong one. They are concerned that it might be a cheapskate solution to a very serious problem, and that it would put back for many years, if not decades, the prospect of having a proper flyover at that junction. I hope we will get some clarity on this, and that I will be able to go back and say to my constituents with the authority of the Minister, “It doesn’t matter whether or not we have a bit of delay in the consultation process. It doesn’t matter if the construction of this hamburger junction as a replacement for the roundabout starts after the Olympics. It does not have to be completed before the Olympics.” That would remove one of the major causes of suspicion among my constituents, which is that this solution is a means of trying to ensure that a few Olympic officials can travel through Dorset more quickly than they might otherwise, at the expense of the long-term inconvenience of local people.
	When my hon. Friend ably opened this debate, I noted that he kept emphasising that these traffic management measures are designed to facilitate competitors and officials getting to the venues. As he will know, Weymouth is a long way from Canford Bottom—more than an hour’s journey away—and I think a wise competitor or official will base their residence much closer to Weymouth. I therefore wonder what timetable might be put in place for the operation of this Olympic route network on the A31 during the games. Is it going to operate for 24 hours a day, or is it going to operate only when it is actually needed and competitors or officials are travelling to a venue? I ask that because at present it seems as though it is designed to enable all the Olympic organisation hangers-on to be able to travel at speed in their limos from London to Weymouth, when everybody else is being told that they will have to travel by public transport. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give us some assurances on that.
	This point is also of relevance in respect of the proposal to close off the junction at the Merley roundabout, which leads towards Poole. My hon. Friend will understand that if one closes a junction on a busy highway and prevents people from turning towards a major destination such as Poole, it will lead to considerable inconvenience for local people. It would be helpful to have an assurance that that inconvenience will be limited to times when it is absolutely essential to facilitate the transport of officials and competitors to the sailing events in Weymouth.
	Paragraph 84 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states that one of the Government’s objectives is
	“to ensure the safe and reliable movement of athletes, officials and other members of the Games Family”—
	capital “G”, capital “F”.
	What causes me a bit of concern is what we mean by the “Games Family”. Does it mean Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all, with the exception of local residents and potential spectators? Who does it mean? Paragraph (b) states that the objective of the Government is
	“to deter workers and spectators from driving to the venues”.
	One way of deterring those people from driving to Weymouth is to ensure that the existing congested roads are kept around the Canford Bottom roundabout and that they are improved only after the 2012 Olympics.
	The Government also clearly say that they want
	“to minimise the impact of the 2012 Games on local businesses and residents going about their everyday business.”
	That is why I have sought the opportunity of this debate to seek these assurances. There is an argument for saying that clause 4 should be amended in Committee to make it clear that these traffic regulation orders are to enable the objective of moving athletes and officials around on the road network to be met more easily and that the wider “Games Family” should not be used as an excuse for inconveniencing people with the orders under this clause.
	When some of my colleagues saw the reference in the Bill to pedlars they thought that I might wish to direct some remarks in that direction and to ticket touting. I could easily do so, but I wish the focus to be on the constituency issue to which I have drawn the Minister’s attention. I would not want to detract from that particular matter, but I am sure that people will be able to look more closely in Committee at whether there is proportionality on the touting offences. I would like the Bill to contain something that makes it clear that people who sell their tickets, particularly any from LOCOG, will be penalised and will not be able to claim privilege when confronted by the forces of the law. I suspect that, as has happened during previous Olympic games, quite a lot of the people who are privileged to be given free tickets then sell those tickets for their own ends and the tickets get on to the secondary market. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the provisions on touting will also apply to all Olympic officials and that there will be no opportunity for them to avoid the full force of the law if they are found to have contravened the Bill.
	I hope that I have been able to put the Canford Bottom roundabout on the map, so to speak. This Minister is responsible for the ODA and so I hope he will realise that this is a significant issue and will be able to assure us that the best solution for the Canford Bottom roundabout is not dependent on its implementation before the Olympic games and the sailing events in Weymouth.

Tessa Jowell: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to contribute to the conclusion of this debate. Since last year’s general election, I have at no time felt a sense of relief that I am no longer the Minister responsible for the Olympics, but when I realised that I will not have to find a solution to the agony of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) over the hamburger junctions, I may for that alone have had a small moment of gratitude.
	As we conclude this excellent debate, I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will want to thank Mr Deputy Speaker—your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker—for his patience and for the latitude he gave to so many speakers. That does not suggest any degree of indifference among Members to the small number of technical changes proposed in the Bill, but rather an appetite for further opportunities to
	debate in the House the exciting prospect of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
	We have covered a wide range of important issues that will have a material bearing on public enjoyment and the enhancement of the UK’s reputation as we host these games. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) has developed great understanding and expertise on the subject of ticket touting. My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who represent Olympic boroughs, gave moving speeches, full of passion, about the impact of the games. It is very easy to forget that impact, but they can see the faces and hear the voices of the people whose lives are diminished or enhanced by our hosting of the Olympic games. We should never forget that there are people in Newham and Tower Hamlets dealing every day with more disruption and disappointment as well as preparing for the excitement of being at the centre of this great global event. Many hon. Members also referred to the importance of maintaining confidence in the manner in which these small technical amendments will be applied in practice.
	I thank the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for his leadership of the all-party group on the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. As he rightly said, it embodies the enthusiasm across the House for the prospect of the games in little over a year’s time.
	We know that this event will change our country in a variety of ways, some of which we can predict, some of which we cannot. We are hosting these games because we want to see more young people—indeed, people of all ages—taking part in and competing in sport, because we want this to be a celebration for the whole of the UK, because we are proud of our city and our country, and because we think we can showcase this great event to the world. We are hosting this great event because we want to see it bring lasting change. Much of that change will be in the private experience of villages, towns and cities around the country and of individuals who resolve to do different or perhaps greater things for themselves and their families as a result of their participation in the games.
	Let us not forget when we visit the Olympic park, as I hope all Members will, that we will see before us change which without the Olympics would not have happened for 30 years. The tough job of turning that into a lasting legacy and bringing in inward investment, new jobs and new confidence will begin when the last of our visitors goes in 2012.
	Finally, I would like to thank the Minister, the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) for the way in which they have worked to maintain the cross-party agreement on the Olympics which it has been so clear from this debate the House wants.

Hugh Robertson: With the leave of the House, I will close the debate, which has been interesting. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and for debating the issues in the Bill in such a helpful and constructive manner. Let me run briefly through the questions and issues that have been raised. In an intervention, the hon. Member for North Durham
	(Mr Jones) asked me to confirm that the cost of enforcement officers will be reimbursed by the ODA via contracts with local authorities, and I can confirm that.
	May I thank, once again, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) not only for her positive contribution this afternoon, both at the start and the end, but for her contribution to this process from start to finish? I think there is wide recognition inside the Olympic movement that had it not been for her championing of this event at the very beginning we might not have been standing here debating it this afternoon. For that and so much else, we thank her. The comments that have been made today should tell her all she needs to know; her efforts on this front are genuinely appreciated across the House and in the wider world.
	The right hon. Lady raised a number of points, the first of which was about how the regulations are applied. I think that we are at one on this issue. Indeed, the body of opinion across the House is very clear: the regulations need to be applied sensibly and proportionately and we will look at all the ways in which we could do that. As she correctly said, communication of what is required is absolutely key to making them work. We will consider whether it will be the Secretary of State or the Mayor who has the relevant powers. In nominating the Secretary of State, we were simply following the guidance set out in the original 2006 Act. Of course, a number of the powers concern things that take place outside London, so there is that element to consider. We will certainly make sure that Transport for London and the relevant local authorities are fully consulted. On the right hon. Lady's point about the victims of 7/7, I think that all of us who were in Singapore will have that seared on our minds for ever. That point was well made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) talked about a number of sports events in and around his borough. He will no doubt be delighted that next door we have also now secured the world canoe championships for 2015, which is yet another world-class event to look forward to. He asked about proportionality and the enforcement of regulations. I can confirm that the regulations will make express provision to exclude those who inadvertently wear logos to events. Clearly, there is a fine line to tread, because if a lot of people who “inadvertently” wear a logo all meet up in the middle there will be a replay of what we saw in South Africa, so the provision will require sensible application, which it will get.
	The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) as always made her case powerfully for her constituents. She was the first person to mention her local paper and I should think there is no better advertisement for the Newham Recorder than her. She asked about the £20,000 fine, which we will consider. Let me make it clear that the level of the fine was signposted in the original Act. With the £20,000 figure we are simply following the advice of the Metropolitan police and if that advice changes we will be prepared to alter the fine. The ODA will undertake an extensive campaign to publicise all the regulations for local businesses. There is already quite a lot more detail than there might originally have been on the London 2012 website. I hope that will help, but if the hon. Lady feels there is a further issue to address, I hope she will come back to me.
	For the first time in the six years that we have been debating this issue I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) managed to get through
	an entire contribution without advocating Bath university over Loughborough, which is the normal course of things. I thank him for his contribution and for his support for the project. We are also grateful for the contribution that his party is making through one of its former leaders to the promotion of the school games. He emphasised the importance of communication about the Olympic route network and he was absolutely correct. Work has already been started by TfL in London and by the ODA outside it. I am told that already 60,000 letters have been distributed on the issue and 12 drop-in sessions have been held. That communication will continue as we move forward.
	If the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my favourite sparring partner on ticket touting, thought that I was a little fierce earlier, I will put her mind at rest: I have a very open mind on the matter. There are arguments on both sides, as she knows and experienced during debate on the Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events) Bill she promoted in January. The key thing is the level of threat identified by the police. After the debate in January, I asked about that again. I was told that a specific threat had been identified, but that it related to specific events, of which the Olympics is one such event, hence the need for this legislation. However, we will keep an open mind on this as we move forward.
	The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the Bill’s progress and of ticket re-sales. It is very difficult to give assurances on the timing. If we get it out of Committee according to the time scale currently envisaged, we hope that it will then proceed to the other place, where there is quite a legislative logjam. The plan was to try to achieve Royal Assent by the end of the year so that the preparatory work can be done to set things up, but I fear that the timings will not quite work. We will try to get the legislation through as fast as possible.
	I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) not only for his speech and his enthusiasm for this project from the start, but for his chairmanship of the all-party group and the sensible and helpful way in which he has supplied advice and guidance as the process has gone on. I do not know how many Members know this, but he has also personally been extraordinarily generous and helpful to potential yachtsmen and women trying to contribute in 2012 and to our rowing squads. I thank him for that as well as for his help to the British Paralympic Association. He really has been a true friend to this process.
	My hon. Friend asked about the Olympic route network, among a number of other things. The idea is not to have it open any longer than is absolutely necessary. We all realise that it will be disruptive to some extent or another, so it will be open only when necessary and expedient for the efficient delivery of the games. I thank him finally for his Select Committee’s report on public diplomacy. He said that he thought that 100 Heads of State might attend, but the last estimate I saw indicated that there will be more than 150, such is the popularity of London, so there will an opportunity for considerable public diplomacy.
	The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke, and I am sorry, because she is absolutely key to the delivery. Huge benefits are accruing to the east end of London through the Olympics. There are 12,500 people currently working on the site who
	would not otherwise be there. Next door, in Stratford, the largest shopping centre in Europe is being built. The Olympic park will be the largest new urban park developed anywhere in Europe. There are huge training and employment benefits for people in the east end. I absolutely understand why she wants to fight as hard as she can for her constituents and get as much as she can for them, but it would help the process of delivery if she was prepared to advocate more positively the benefits it will bring.
	We all know the current public funding position. The Government have fought very hard to deliver the Olympic games budget and keep it intact, and we have been successful in doing so. We will do exactly what we have promised to do, but local people must also play their part. I hope that the hon. Lady will step forward and be slightly more positive about this in future.
	As far as policing is concerned, up to £600 million is available for policing the Olympics and a further £238 million is available in contingency funds, so there is, or should be, no shortage of money available.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) talked very passionately about the legacy for sport and exercise of this whole process. That was a key part of the bid in Singapore and she is absolutely right to highlight it. She made the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made about the proportionate application of the regulations, and I hope that I have given her some reassurance on that front.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned in an earlier intervention local authorities and traffic problems. We can confirm that local authorities have such powers already, which they can use if they perceive that there is a problem. I confirm that the national lottery will be repaid on receipt of the land sales. I thank him for encouraging people to attend some of the less well-known events. Indeed, the early evidence from the ticketing process is that that is exactly what has happened, so I thank him for his advocacy of it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) made the point about the resale capacity of the website, and he is absolutely right. With the exception of the relatively small blip on Tuesday night, the website has performed extraordinarily well. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South said earlier, this is the largest ticketing exercise that this country has ever undertaken, and there was one tiny minor blip at the very last minute which was quickly corrected, so it has been a fantastic success. The resale issue is crucial—the Government are absolutely clear about that—if we are to have tough ticket-touting regulations.
	Finally, I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the Canford Bottom roundabout. Despite some encouragement from both sides of the House, I am not going to get into that issue this afternoon. I am going to stick to the line that I gave him during the many interventions that he tried me with earlier, not least because I, like him, am not entirely sure about a hamburger junction. We wondered whether it might be round and where the filling might be—all the various possible permutations.
	The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) was here earlier, and the best we can offer
	is that we will look into the issue and get back to my hon. Friend. We are not entirely clear that the Canford Bottom roundabout alterations are directly funded through the Olympic transport budget. Local authorities are carrying out a series of projects of their own accord in order better to host events, and it may well be that the Canford Bottom roundabout improvements are one such example, but we will find out and let him know.
	This has been a good debate with many interesting contributions from all parts of the House. At the beginning, I said that the provisions in the Bill serve to ensure that the original intentions of the 2006 Act can be delivered. The commitments given to the International Olympic Committee on the restriction of advertising, trading, ticket touting and traffic management all play a major part in the delivery of a safe, successful and memorable games, and this Bill goes a long way to ensuring that those assurances can be effectively delivered.
	I think that I speak for the whole House in putting on the record our thanks and gratitude to the many people who have worked in the many organisations that are seeking to deliver this project. The Olympic Delivery Authority has worked such wonders with the construction and, as several people said, finally laid to rest the ghost that we cannot deliver major construction projects on time and below budget.
	The organising committee has met the various organisational challenges. Indeed, only fairly recently, one major media figure said to me, “It’ll be ticketing. That’s the one that’ll go wrong,” but that is yet another challenge that the games have met and—so far, as far we know—conquered.
	The legacy is a difficult issue, and nobody would pretend otherwise. Everybody naturally talks it up a lot at the start of a process, but it can be quantified and formed only as we reach the end of the process. We are in the middle of the process at the moment, but I think that there is a real shape to the legacy now.
	There is an enormous amount to be proud of in terms of what has been constructed on the park, what will be left on the park and in the surrounding area, and its effect on Olympic and Paralympic sport in this country, on people who play sport in their communities, on school children who will have the new schools Olympics, and crucially—we always tend to forget this—on 10 million young children in 20 countries throughout the world who have been touched by the really innovative and powerful international inspiration programme. So, to all the people who have been involved in the delivery of the project and, indeed, to our own civil servants and the Government Olympic Executive, I put on the record our thanks.
	We meet at a good time in London’s Olympics: the budget has held, the construction effort has gone well and is 70% complete, the organisational challenges have thus far been met and the legacy is taking shape. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood was absolutely right to say that it has gone well thus far, but let nobody forget for a moment that construction is at its peak and a large number of challenges are yet to be met if we are to deliver a successful Olympics. Complacency is no part of the process, and there is a
	great deal to do, but at this moment the London 2012 project is in great shape. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

LONDON OLYMPIC GAMES AND PARALYMPIC GAMES (AMENDMENT) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 19 May 2011.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Mr Goodwill.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Charities

That the draft Charities (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 3 March, be approved.—(Mr Goodwill.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Coastguard Services (Falmouth)

Sarah Newton: The petition is from more than 7,500 readers of the “Falmouth Packet” newspaper and others.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Falmouth,
	Declares that the petitioners believe that Falmouth Coastguard must be retained as a 24 hour a day operation, because the experience and expertise of the Falmouth Coastguard could not safely be transferred elsewhere.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to require the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to take into account the views of residents of Falmouth in the course of its consultation on the future of the Coastguard.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000919]

VARIANT CREUTZFELDT-JAKOB DISEASE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his attendance. I know that he has been looking forward to this Thursday afternoon with two and a half hours ahead of him in a warm Chamber. Looking at his smile, he is not taking that too seriously. I need to declare an interest in case there is any knock-on effect from the debate. If the Government were kind enough to go ahead with some of the suggestions I might make, there could be a negative financial effect on me personally, as I am a very part-time dentist.
	I have been interested in this issue for a number of years, and I have raised it through questions and in an Adjournment debate. I am hoping that now we have a new Government and a fresh set of eyes on the issue, we might get some progression towards a little more prevention. Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—commonly known as variant CJD, and it will be from now on so that my tongue can get round it—is a fatal neuro-degenerative disease originating from exposure to bovine-spongiform-encephalopathy-like prions. Prions are small particles of protein. Prion infections are associated with long and clinically silent incubations and cause a spongy degeneration of the brain with a horrible and untimely death. There is no cure. The number of asymptomatic individuals with vCJD prion infection is unknown. It poses a risk to others via blood transfusion, blood products, organ or tissue grafts, and contaminated medical and dental instruments.
	The emergence of vCJD and the confirmation that it originates from exposure to BSE raised a glut of public health concerns affecting endoscopy, surgery, dentistry, organ transplantation and blood transfusions. Exposure of the UK population to BSE was widespread, with over 181,000 cases in cattle and estimates of total infections of 1 million to 3 million cattle beasts. About 200 people, mostly from the UK, have been infected, although many more could be. Because of this, the UK is the largest reservoir of vCJD prions in the world. Much of the UK population born before 1996 has potentially been exposed to BSE-contaminated food, and the number of people who carry the infection but remain healthy is unknown.
	The issue is particularly relevant in the light of recent deaths. For example, Jonathan Simms, who died aged 26 in Belfast, was given only months to live following his diagnosis in the summer of 2001. He had won a High Court battle which enabled him to receive controversial treatment with an experimental drug called pentosan polysulfate. He remained disabled, but his family and doctors said that his condition had not declined any further, and a slight improvement was recorded. However, he finally lost his battle in March.
	From 1990 to February 2011, 170 people in Britain died from vCJD. Although the current wave of vCJD is apparently fizzling out, after peaking in 2000 with 28 cases, a big worry is whether there will be further waves a considerable time in the future.
	I wish to touch on three topics in this short debate, and I assure the Minister that my speech will be short. The first is the development of a new blood test for
	vCJD; the second is the approval of a red blood cell filter that can catch vCJD, which we seem to be running around in circles about without coming to a conclusion; and the third is the use of cold sterilisation solutions on surgical and dental instruments, of which three are potentially available, including Rely+On. I would like to ask why those are not being used.
	First, on the new blood test, the number of asymptomatic individuals with vCJD prion infection is unknown. Because of that, it poses a risk to others via blood transfusions, blood products, organ or tissue grafts, and contaminated medical instruments. A blood test for vCJD has been an important goal of medical research laboratories and companies around the world for many years. It has been very difficult to achieve because the infectious agent that causes vCJD has unique features that mean that the sensitive methods that doctors usually use to detect the presence of a germ, or other such agents, do not work.
	Professor Collinge and others at the Medical Research Council’s prion unit have recently developed a blood test to detect vCJD, or at least the prions. It exploits the powerful attraction between abnormal prion proteins and some metals, in particular some stainless steels. The test was applied to a number of patients, including those with vCJD, sporadic CJD and a number of other neurological diseases that are easily confused with vCJD, and to a number of healthy blood donors. As vCJD is rare, only a relatively small number of samples were available for testing. When the new test was run on 21 samples from different vCJD patients, 15 of the 21 samples from people with clinical CJD tested positive. So far, all samples from other neurological diseases or healthy blood donors have tested negative. The test is quite dramatic. Although it is at an early stage, it is able to correctly identify the majority of patients with symptoms of vCJD and has not yet given any false results for patients with other brain diseases or for healthy individuals. That is important both for early diagnosis of the disease in patients and for the development of a screening test that may detect silent infection in healthy individuals.
	The initial studies provide a prototype blood test for diagnosis of vCJD in symptomatic individuals, which could allow development of large-scale screening tests for asymptomatic vCJD prion infection. If a screening test can be developed, it will be possible to estimate the number of infected carriers in the UK population and potentially to reduce the risk of accidental transmission of infection through medical and surgical procedures such as blood transfusions, and through dental instruments, which I must mention.
	Variant CJD has predominantly been diagnosed when the patient has had the disease for some time and has developed symptoms that are coupled with extensive damage to the brain. The early symptoms of the disease, such as anxiety, depression and tingling pains in the legs, are regularly mistaken for many more common causes. Understandably, doctors do not jump to the serious conclusion of vCJD until other symptoms show forth, such as difficulty with movement or balance and loss of mental abilities.
	Due to the rapid and crippling nature of the disease and the length of time it takes to carry out the series of tests required to reach a diagnosis, more often than not the patient’s symptoms are well advanced before a definitive diagnosis is reached. A blood test will enable patients to
	establish a diagnosis early, or at least earlier. Although there is no cure yet, experimental drugs are being developed at the MRC’s prion unit and elsewhere, with a view to holding clinical trials in the next few years. The unit wants to try such treatments on patients at an early stage, before irreversible brain damage has occurred. Early diagnosis would also give the patient and their family a quick and definite answer, allowing them to use the time that they have left as best they can.
	Although the blood test is a monumental step forward in the fight against vCJD, it is important to be mildly cautious about the news. The results so far are encouraging, but further research needs to be taken forward. The researchers need to examine blood samples from much larger numbers of healthy people and those with other brain diseases, to get a better idea of how specific the test is in practice. That is vital before a version of the test can be considered for the routine screening of healthy blood donors.
	Two steps need to be taken now that the blood test has been tested successfully in the initial study. The first is the planned testing of 5,000 American blood donors, which I understand has been set up. That will enable Professor Collinge and his team to eliminate the possibility of false positives. However, there is a stumbling block—a lack of funding. As I understand it, the Government are not keen to fund the research. There is a possibility that the MRC will fund that stage of it, but then the researchers would need to move on to seek funding for the next step, which would be to test 50,000 UK donors. That would give the Government an indication of whether vCJD was as widespread as feared, which would make it possible to consider whether the costly procedures that are currently in place to offset its spread are really necessary, or whether their use should be increased.
	From the answer to a recent question by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), we know that the Government have taken a number of steps to offset the spread of vCJD, including the removal of white cells from donated blood; the massively expensive importation of plasma used to manufacture fractionated blood products; and disallowing recipients of blood transfusions from acting as blood donors. Those are all extremely expensive steps, and at a time of spending cuts it would make sense to spend a little bit of money to get the test that I have described moving, to discover once and for all whether vCJD is as widespread as feared, and in turn whether those expensive procedures are really necessary.
	Whether the test on 50,000 UK donors shows a prevalence of vCJD prions or a lack of patients with them, it is a crucial step in the fight against vCJD and should, without doubt, be a priority for Government funding. At the moment, the test does not work on other forms of prion disease such as sporadic CJD, but there is some hope that with further work, it will be available for such conditions in future.
	I move on to the issue of blood filtering. Following an anonymous study of archived tissue specimens, the Department of Health uses in its risk calculations the estimate that 1 in 4,000 individuals may be silently infected with vCJD prions. Professor Collinge and his team believe that there is considerable uncertainty about that figure, and that the true number could be significantly higher or lower. It is also unknown how many of those
	infected will actually go on to develop the disease, the problem being that the incubation period in humans can be as long as 50 years.
	Those unknowingly infected individuals could be active blood donors, and they could pass on the infection to other people, including through medical and surgical instruments used on them. Although the National Blood Service has taken several actions to try to minimise that risk, such as removing white cells from blood, a process known as leucodepletion, and spending millions of pounds on importing blood serum from the US, it is uncertain how effective those methods are in reducing the risk, or indeed whether they will really be justified should the number of infected people turn out to be exceptionally small.
	ProMetic and MacoPharma are two firms that strongly recommend that the Department of Health implement the CE-marked P-Capt prion reduction filter as a matter of urgency, to safeguard the UK blood supply. It is a tailor-made medical device that has been developed by the medical technology company MacoPharma. It is a blood filter that removes all infectious prion proteins that carry vCJD, thereby dramatically reducing or eliminating the risk of transmission through infectious prions and ensuring as far as possible that all blood is safe for transfusion. It has been proved safe and effective and is ready to use, with more than 350 patients having been transfused with P-Capt filtered blood with no adverse effects. The filter has been CE-marked since 2006, meaning that it has passed the EU safety and efficacy test required for it to be used in the UK. The filter has been designed to work with existing technologies and procedures used by the UK National Blood Service, and its introduction would be simple and probably cost-effective. The P-Capt filter could also be used to protect against other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, including prion diseases that have not yet been identified and named. However, the previous Government appear to have stalled on introducing prion filtration, which is proven to protect people against vCJD transmission through blood transfusions.
	Blood contamination is a disaster well known to thousands in this country. Many people with haemophilia were infected with HIV and hepatitis in the ’70s and ’80s because they received contaminated blood from the NHS that was not particularly well screened, or not screened at all, for those viruses. Not only were people infected, but they unknowingly passed the infections to their families. Nearly 2,000 individuals have died as result of that blood calamity, and the figure is increasing.
	The vCJD situation is potentially a ticking time bomb—a similar blood disaster could be waiting to happen. Like those who were infected with HIV and hepatitis, those infected with vCJD could be unwittingly passing it on to others, including those who receive their donated blood. To date, at least five people have been confirmed as contracting vCJD after receiving contaminated blood and blood products.
	A number of researchers in the department of haematology at Cork university hospital investigated the filter’s operational use and the quality of the filtered components, as well as whether the filtration resulted in any significant changes to blood group antigens. They found that 99% of “top-and-top” units, and 58% of “bottom-and-top” units, had a haemoglobin content of more than 40 grams. Haemolysis increased immediately
	after filtration, but units remained within UK specification throughout storage. Prion reduction resulted in the loss of 7 to 8 grams of haemoglobin, and reductions in haematocrit of 6% to 9%, due to the filter containing 40 ml of saline, adenine, glucose and mannitol. There is no evidence of any immunologic changes of clinical relevance to the red blood cells membrane after filtration.
	The Cork university researchers concluded that prion filtration does not appear to have a detrimental effect on basic in-vitro measures of red blood cell quality or on blood group antigens as assessed by in-vitro methods. However, prion filtration using the P-Capt filter results in some loss of haemoglobin, as I noted. The researchers also found during their study that the filter provides encouraging data on the safety of filtration, which means that it could be used, as was planned and recommended, in adults and children, but particularly the latter.
	The Health Protection Agency findings that up to 40,000 people in the UK may be incubating vCJD without knowing it highlights the ongoing threat of prion diseases and the need to filter transferred blood to ensure that donors who are carrying latent prions do not infect recipients. P-Capt has been extensively and independently tested for more than three years. It has been proven not only to work, but to be safe and effective, for a wide range of prion proteins, and its implementation has been recommended by an independent UK safety committee.
	As I mentioned, deaths from vCJD continue, and I suspect that there will be more. Only last year, researchers from Case Western Reserve university in the US identified a new human prion brain disease—similar to vCJD—that is also associated with a fast-advancing form of dementia. It is now more than a year since the UK’s Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs—SaBTO—recommended that the Department of Health adopt the P-Capt filter. It is abundantly clear that those crucial safeguards against that vicious disease should be implemented without delay.
	The SaBTO recommendation of the use of the P-Capt filter was subject to the completion of the prion-filtered versus standard red cells in surgical and multi-transfused patients study, which is known as the PRISM study. For those who are not aware, PRISM is the third safety study that has been performed on the filter. The two previous investigations, both of which demonstrated the clinical safety of P-Capt, showed absolutely no adverse events. The PRISM process was initially due to conclude in spring and summer of 2009, but it appears to have dragged on for much longer, which has caused considerable concern. The process should be progressed much more rapidly.
	A recent parliamentary answer suggested that the tests would not be expected to conclude until mid-2012, although the original deadline was 2009. An interim report is due this summer and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. As the filter has been deemed safe for use since 2006, such a delay seems unnecessary and potentially dangerous for those currently receiving unfiltered, and therefore unprotected, blood.
	Following the publication of SaBTO’s recommendations, the Department of Health informed MacoPharma that an impact assessment was being prepared for Ministers, to help make a quick decision on implementation. This was in October 2009, but the impact assessment appears
	never to have been published and it has been increasingly difficult to understand the decision-making process. Given the potential impact of failing to protect the blood supply from vCJD contamination, such a lack of transparency is deeply worrying.
	In Ireland, P-Capt is being used routinely in one pilot hospital and is currently undergoing a health technology assessment in relation to national policy and adoption. Of all places, Macau has a blood transfusion service that has started to use P-Capt to remove vCJD from red blood cell concentrates donated by Caucasians thought to be at risk of carrying the prion. Globally, over 90 million blood units are collected annually and MacoPharma is committed to providing solutions that safeguard this blood supply. The present process of leucodepletion used on UK-donated red blood cell concentrates is not sufficient to prevent people from being infected with vCJD. It is shown to remove only 42% of the total transmissible spongiform encephalopathies infectivity.
	In terms of the financial costs of the filter, full implementation to filter all donated blood would cost around £1 per person in England. I think—and I hope that the Minister agrees—that that is a small price to pay considering the consequences if the problem escalates. Despite the fact that some people’s genetic make-up may protect them from this disease, at least 89% of the population may be susceptible to vCJD if infected.
	Lastly I would like to discuss briefly the situation relating to dental and surgical instruments. As we have seen recently in the news, there have been two separate incidents—one at Queen’s hospital in Essex and another in Wales—in which patients have been told they have been put at risk of contracting CJD through surgery. Details have not been released about the case in Wales. However in the Essex incident, the mother of a patient who had an operation in the same operating theatre as those who have been contacted had developed an inherited form of CJD. That patient has since been tested and found to be carrying a gene that meant that she too could go on to develop the disease. Although the risk of the individuals concerned actually developing the disease is probably very small, it is of course extremely distressing for them, and in the interest of public health safety they will not be allowed to donate blood, organs or tissue.
	Professor Collinge and his team believe that such incidents are not uncommon and that although the risk to patients from contaminated surgical instruments is believed to be small, it has not yet been quantified. His research team, working with Dupont, has recently developed an effective prion deactivation soak called Rely+On. However, despite actually having a commercial partner, it is not being used in hospitals and in fact DuPont is no longer manufacturing Rely+On. This soak is one of three—another was developed at Edinburgh university and another was produced by the Government-sponsored Health Protection Agency. None has been used in a hospital setting. The reason for this is that the Government have not given hospitals or commercial partners the incentive to use and invest in these products. If the hospitals were under pressure and the cleaner was provided at a commercially viable cost, the cost would be lower because there would be a huge market to sell it to and production could recommence. The Government need to give commercial firms the green light to go ahead by explaining to the companies that they will have a commercial
	market. That will inspire them to carry out the final tests and make changes to make the product more viable for hospitals to use. I understand that a qualified clearance has been given to Rely+On. It is qualified only at the second level because it froths in washer disinfectors. If a commercial green light was given, I am sure that DuPont and others would produce a product that did not froth. A future requirement could be set through a change to health technical memorandum 01-05 or even through the dreaded Care Quality Commission.
	I ask the Minister to act now on these issues and not to let this valuable research sink without trace or these products go to waste. We are lucky in that vCJD does not seem to have had an enormous effect on our generation. However, it is the next generation and the one after that we should be thinking of and trying to protect. They are the ones who could well feel the ghastly effects of this crippling disease and who will be pointing the finger at our generation—and perhaps specifically the Minister—and asking why we did not get stuck into the problem and introduce more prevention now.

Simon Burns: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing this important debate and on his thoughtful and well-informed comments on a matter of public concern and genuine importance. I also pay tribute to his ongoing commitment to keeping the issue of variant CJD in the public consciousness, not least through his various debates on the Floor of the House and his questioning of Ministers.
	My hon. Friend asked about the Government’s response to vCJD, and I am happy to have this opportunity to update the House. Thankfully, the incidence of cases of clinical vCJD in the UK remains at a very low level, with a total of 175 cases recorded. Since a peak of 29 onsets in 1999 and 28 deaths—sadly—in 2000, the trend has fortunately been continuously downward. In 2010, there was only one new case. There have been no cases presumed to be associated with surgical or dental procedures and no known transmissions presumed to be associated with blood since 1999. The reality contrasts with some predictions that surrounded early discussion of vCJD in the late 1990s. Some people forecast large numbers of infections and deaths far in excess of what has come to pass. However, this is perhaps understandable given the uncertainties that still remain around the disease.
	Although we can be pleased that the worst-case scenario has not materialised, we must remain vigilant and continue to do all we can to reduce risks to patients through potential transmissions via blood or surgical procedures. Many aspects of this condition remain unknown, and because of the unusual nature of the presumed infectious agent—the prion—are likely to remain so, as my hon. Friend alluded to. Existing measures have been put in place to reduce the risk of secondary vCJD infection passed from person to person, and it is vital that these are maintained unless evidence becomes available to indicate that they are no longer necessary or are otherwise ineffective.
	Some measures put in place to protect against the transmission of vCJD also provide additional benefits to patients. One example is the continual improvement of decontamination practices across all of health care. This is vital to ensure that care is delivered safely with low levels of infection risk from all manner of infections, including vCJD, bacterial, protozoal and viral risks. The maintenance and improvement of existing, and the development of new, decontamination systems are essential for maintaining patient safety.
	The Government take high-quality decontamination very seriously, and I can announce today that the Department of Health is commissioning a new programme of decontamination-related research. The Department will make available £2.4 million over the next four years to fund this research, which will include support for the development of cold plasma decontamination technologies, specifically for use in narrow channelled instruments such as endoscopes. Another study will aim to optimise the effectiveness of automated washer disinfectors used to wash and sterilise surgical instruments. Other projects will address new methods for detection of residual protein contamination on instruments following routine washing and disinfection.
	In addition to decontamination, another vCJD risk-reduction measure that provides additional health benefits is the removal of white blood cells from all blood for transfusion. The removal of white blood cells not only reduces the risk of vCJD transmission, but reduces the risk of cytomegalovirus transmission, transfusion-associated lung injury and transfusion-related fever, and has other benefits. The provision of synthetic clotting factors for the treatment of all patients with bleeding disorders such as haemophilia is another measure associated with both reducing the risk of vCJD transmission and improved patient care.

Paul Beresford: I thank my hon. Friend for his announcements and I note his repetition of some of the points that I have already made. Does he accept that there are already three commercially available materials that can be used for cold sterilisation—but which are not being used and to which the Government have given only semi-recognition—and could also be introduced extremely quickly? Secondly, I note his point about white cell depletion, but a filter has been available since 2006 that would take red blood cells out as well, greatly improving the restriction of the prion.

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If he bears with me, I will come to both those points. I want to outline what the Government have been doing, but towards the end of my speech I have a number of comments to make in response to some of the valid points that he raised in his speech.
	As I was saying, the provision of synthetic clotting factors for the treatment of all patients with bleeding disorders such as haemophilia is another measure associated with both reducing the risk of variant CJD transmission and improved patient care. Those products, although not suitable for all patients, eliminate all variant CJD and other blood-borne infection risks to those patients.
	All the health care actions taken to reduce the risks of person-to-person transmission of variant CJD have costs. Estimates of the annual cost of blood-related
	protection measures alone amount to approximately £40 million. However, many costs that are badged as variant CJD risk-reduction measures would be incurred even without that specific risk. Without a variant CJD risk, many of the blood-related measures, including leucoreduction and the use of synthetic clotting factors, would continue because of the wider safety and other benefits that they confer. The Government also continue to support payments to those affected by clinical variant CJD through the Variant CJD Trust. The trust has paid out approximately £39 million to patients and their families over the last 10 years.
	In the latter part of his speech my hon. Friend talked about the risk of contamination via dentistry, which I would like to address now. There have been no known, or indeed suspected, cases of variant CJD transmission arising from dental procedures. However, there are still considerable scientific uncertainties that prevent us from quantifying the specific potential risk. The Department of Health has focused on improving standards of dental decontamination over the last decade, as the risk from blood-borne viruses—especially hepatitis B and C, and HIV—is a recognised risk in dental practices. Approximately 500,000 people in this country are infected with those viruses, and there are more than 1.5 million patient contacts every week in NHS dental practices. It is essential that the quality of local decontamination in practices must be of the highest standard.
	The available equipment for and knowledge about decontamination is constantly changing, as my hon. Friend is aware. We update our policies to keep pace with those technical and scientific developments. An essential feature of the British Dental Association guidance, published in 2004, was the importance of both the sterilization and pre-sterilization cleaning components of the decontamination process. Indeed, the essential quality requirements in the Department’s guidance, as set out in “Health Technical Memorandum 01-05”, were similar to those in the British Dental Association’s original A12 document.
	Guidance from the Department of Health states that all dentists should use automated washer disinfectors as part of best practice. There are three reasons for this. First, they provide a consistent and reliable cleaning and disinfection process. Secondly, they contain the washing and disinfection process within a sealed unit, which helps to minimise the risk of spreading microbiological and chemical hazards. Thirdly, there is strong evidence that automated washer disinfectors are effective in removing the worst of the contamination from dental instruments and that they deliver a much greater degree of consistency in cleaning. This will reduce the worst-case risks to subsequent patients.
	Also, following the recently commissioned research on optimising the efficacy of washer disinfectors, we expect their performance to improve significantly in the coming years. Initial research indicates that the use of automated washer disinfectors can reduce general protein contamination on instruments by a factor of up to 10,000. The reduction in hydrophobic proteins, similar to prion proteins, is roughly a factor of 100. Automated washer disinfectors are therefore very useful in improving the quality of instrument cleaning and reducing risk.

Paul Beresford: I was not picking on dentistry specifically, because washer disinfectors are also used in hospitals. They are an excellent idea. They are very expensive, but we are going down the right road. The problem is, however, that the prion sticks to certain stainless steel instruments used in dentistry and elsewhere in hospital services, and the washer disinfector will not remove it. However, if the Rely+On, or one of the other two products, were utilised either in the soak beforehand or in the washer disinfector, that would make the process much more effective as far as the prion is concerned.

Simon Burns: Again, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to these points when I deal with a number of the issues that he raised in his speech.
	The guidance encourages the purchase of automated washer disinfectors. However, no time frame has been stipulated and they were not part of the essential quality requirements that all practices had to meet by the end of 2010. A 2009-10 national survey on policy, equipment and procedures used by local dental practices in the decontamination of their instruments showed that more than 70% were at or above the standard required by Department of Health guidance. That figure is likely to improve further, as many other dental practices are close to the required performance level.
	The British Dental Association was fully involved in the development of the guidance, and is supportive of the principles underpinning it. The guidance is also consistent with the BDA’s advice sheet A12, “Infection Control in Dentistry”, published in 2004, which states:
	“CJD and related conditions raise new infection control questions because ‘prions’, the infectious agents that cause them, are much more difficult to destroy than conventional micro-organisms, so optimal decontamination standards need to be observed. As a universal precaution, all instruments should be thoroughly cleaned before autoclaving, in order to remove as much matter as possible.”
	During 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Department of Health made £100 million of capital funding available through PCTs for use in primary dental care. One of the areas identified as suitable for that money was the improvement of standards of decontamination in primary dental care. Many PCTs have provided grants to practices to support the roll-out of automated washer disinfectors in primary dental care.
	These and other variant CJD risk reduction measures will remain in place and we will continue to consider all other options where there is evidence of their overall efficacy, safety and cost benefit. For example, we closely follow the development by commercial and academic organisations of potential blood screening tests. While recent progress—as exemplified by the recent publication in The Lancet of the Government-funded prion unit’s development of a prototype diagnostic test—is promising, there remains no test suitable for screening blood donations.
	Another possible technology is, as my hon. Friend mentioned, prion filtration, which aims to remove the presumed variant CJD infective agent from blood. In early 2012 on completion of a clinical trial, Ministers will consider the possible use of prion filtration in addition to leucoreduction to reduce further the potential risk of infection from red blood cells. I trust that that helps to answer one of my hon. Friend’s points.

Paul Beresford: I thank my right hon. Friend again for giving way, and for his tolerance. His statement is interesting, although under the previous Government there was a demand by the Department to provide an impact assessment on the P-Capt filter, which should have been ready for Ministers in October 2009. Will he inquire whether that is available, and if so have a look at it? It would speed up the decision making.

Simon Burns: I can answer my hon. Friend instantly on that. I said just before his intervention that we expect the trial results in 2012, and the impact assessment will be completed only when the trial is completed. The impact assessment, then, will not be available until 2012 when the trials have been completed. I hope that that explains it, and satisfies my hon. Friend.
	I would like to enter a note of caution that, as with all new technologies, it is important to consider all the potential costs and benefits to ensure that, as far as possible, the benefits they offer and the costs they incur—both financial and clinical— are fully understood. One example was when single-use tonsillectomy instruments were introduced in 2001 to reduce the risk of variant CJD infection. The instruments were withdrawn within a year, after the death of a number of patients. This clearly shows that no matter how good the intentions, there can, sadly, sometimes be unintended consequences with the introduction of thoroughly assessed new technologies.
	My hon. Friend raised a number of issues, which I would like to go through methodically. He talked knowledgeably about prion filtration and effectively asked what was the Government’s position on its use to reduce the risk of variant CJD. I can advise him that the independent Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs considers that there is evidence that a particular filter is able to reduce potential infectivity in a unit of red blood cells and has recommended—subject to satisfactory completion of the clinical trial—the introduction of filtered blood to those born since 1 January 1996. The Government are undertaking an evaluation of the costs, benefits and impacts to inform a decision on whether to implement that recommendation. As I said to my hon. Friend a few moments ago, that is expected to be completed in 2012, when we will also have an impact assessment, which could be studied.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of funding. The current funding by the Department is for studies led by Professor Collinge. Between 1996 and 2012 the Department of Health will have provided more than £18.2 million for studies led by Professor Collinge, which is in addition to his funding by the Medical Research Council. Through the RDD policy research programme, the Department currently funds two studies that underpin and are integrated with the MRC Neuropathogenesis Unit funding. The National Prion Monitoring Cohort funding is worth £3.04 million between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2012. Secondly, the development of an effective treatment for prion infection by humans is funded to the value of £7.2 million from 1 February 2006 to 30 June 2012, in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.

Paul Beresford: First, I am astonished that the PRISM trials have taken so long. They were supposed to finish in 2009, and they have dragged on for a further
	three years. We really should be worried about the potential development of infection in the intervening period.
	Secondly, the Minister has delighted us with the research figures, but they pale into insignificance in comparison with the volume of expenditure by the national health service on imports of blood products and blood serum from the United States in particular. Collinge’s team have produced the test and one of the three soaks, so he has achieved positive results. It would be a mistake to stop now, rather than investing a little more funding to support the next stages of the test so that the tree that was planted initially can bear fruit.

Simon Burns: I always welcome any justified lobbying for extra funding, especially if it is for research. I do not think it appropriate for me to promise my hon. Friend the earth from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, but I will promise him that I will ensure that his request and his justification for the provision of further funds are drawn to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). No doubt she will consider what he has said and write to him in due course.

Paul Beresford: rose—

Simon Burns: I feared that that might prompt another intervention.

Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister sincerely, because it is unusual for Ministers to give way with such regularity. Perhaps it is also unusual for them to receive requests.
	I understand that the Under-Secretary of State has considered the matter, and is looking to the private sector to fund the advances and further testing. The private sector is unlikely to do that because it has no incentive, but, as a Minister in the Department of Health looking after the nation’s health, my right hon. Friend has every incentive, as has the Under-Secretary of State.

Simon Burns: I admire my hon. Friend’s persistence and congratulate him on it, but I fear that it will not push me any further at this moment. I hear what he says about the meeting between my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and Professor Collinge. I cannot comment on that, but I reiterate yet again that I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State so that she can reflect on them. No doubt she will be in touch with him once she has had time to do so.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the three decontamination products. They have not yet been proven suitable for use in the standard decontamination cycle in health care, and we must therefore await the conclusion of the research. Once we have seen the results of that research and, in one case, the impact assessment, we shall be able to seek to make positive progress.
	Let me reassure my hon. Friend that the Government take the risks of variant CJD very seriously indeed. Because of the uncertainty surrounding it, we cannot be satisfied that we can stop looking for ways of improving and enhancing the protection of members of the public, and minimising the development and
	spread of this particularly horrendous medical condition. Successive Governments have introduced a wide range of precautionary measures focused on reducing risk to protect public health. I assure my hon. Friend that we will maintain them and keep them under review as new evidence emerges, and that we will
	ensure that any new measures under consideration are effective, safe and appropriate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.